Navigating the SMV continues to be one of my most prolific posts. I can remember originally writing that post and plotting the graph as a one-off response to a comment (by Deti I think) made requesting a graphic representation of how both men and women’s SMV waxes and wanes as they progress through life. At the time I had no idea how influential and accurate the graph would be, but it seems that not every three or so months someone links or emails me an outside study with a graph that is so similar to my initial perception of sexual market valuation and devaluation that it kind of creeps me out a little bit.
This most recent graph comes to us courtesy of the Red Pill subreddit, linked to the Cougar and Cub Dating Study on Whatsyourprice.com.
From the chart above, we see that the perceived value of an attractive woman peaks when she reaches 25 years old, and gradually diminishes as she ages. The perceived value of an attractive man however, starts at a much lower price when he is young, peaking only when he reaches the age of 34. It appears from the value curve above that at least some stereotypes we often hear do hold some truth. For example, that female models earn the most before they turn 30. Or that men become more attractive as they age.
But no matter what some of you may read from the value curves above, it has proved a useful tool for predicting when Cougar-Cub couples get together, and when they are likely to break up. The value curves also provide clues of what types of Cougar-Cub relationships stand the best chance of surviving in the long run.
Granted, my own parameters were slightly broader in scope (female SMV peaked at 22-23, men’s 36-38) but the base premise is astonishingly similar. As you might expect the comments are rife with “well-not-in-my-case”, “people are individuals” personal anecdotes, but the grouping of the graph plot is too similar not to recognize a consistency of form with my original SMV graph:
There are other studies and graphs that reflect this basic model. Some are more forgiving and project the feminine SMV decay a bit less or starting later – rarely is men’s SMV any less rigorous – and each study has differing objectives, but the form of the curves are so alike that it’s impossible not to notice the general similarities. I’ve done several followup posts in order to address the most common (deliberate) misunderstandings, as well as the most pressing questions about my SMV graph, so while we move on to the next section of the SMV timeline this week please be sure you reference the side bar category I have set up that exclusively covers the topic if you have questions. I’m prefacing this week’s continuation of Preventative Medicine with this graph because it will be an integral element to understanding the progression through the Epiphany and Transitionary phases.
The Late Party Years
Although not a subsection itself, the latter third of a woman’s Party Years deserves some mention in that the end of this phase is often a prelude for the rationales women develop leading into the Epiphany Phase. As I mentioned here, some third party SMV studies will place a woman’s peak SMV as late as 25-26 years old. I’d argue that this is far too late in a woman’s life progression.
Statistically, most women express a desire to settle down, be married and start a family at or around the age of 27 to 30, and most marriages do happen between 26 and 30 for western women. The popularized, feminized ideal of a woman enjoying her prime – often excused as fulfilling her nebulous professional potential – is a primary contributor to this marriage postponement, but it’s important to point out to men dating women in this phase that the last two years of the party phase will be the stage at which a woman will begin to feel an urgency for long term commitment.
I summed this phase up in Cashing Out, however, it’s here that women, with the foresight to see it, will make their best attempts to consolidate on marriage with the man who best embodies, or has the potential to embody, the Alpha sexual-genetics with the providership parental investment that an optimized hypergamy seeks to balance in the same man. At no other time will a woman feel more urgency in capitalizing on her still prime attractiveness and sexual agency with a man she believes will fulfill the dual dictates of her sexual strategy.
“Where is this going?”
This is the most common phase in which a man will hear the words “where is this going?” from a woman, or is delivered ultimatums of withdrawal of intimacy (no more sex, or threats of break up) if no proposal is forthcoming in the foreseeable future.
Although women’s preferred method of communication rests in the covert, as she matures towards a condition of a lessened capacity to intra-sexually compete with her younger peers (competition anxiety) most men discover that women in this demographic, by necessity, lean more on overt communication. The coquetry, indirectness and blasé indifference that she used to hold and enjoy male attentions during her SMV peak years is progressively traded for more direct certainties of promised, committed assurances of future security.
Side note: Bear in mind that security for women isn’t always manifested as financial provisioning, but can be emotional investment, parental investment, physical security and most importantly fulfilling a masculine role of stability and dominance in her life.
Of primary importance is the consideration that women seek the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks (AFBB) balance of their hypergamous interests in the same man at this stage. That’s not to say this isn’t always the operative for feminine hypergamy, but it’s during the late party years phase that a woman (on some level of consciousness) begins to realize this time is her best opportunity to use her quick-burn SMV to consolidate on an optimized hypergamy. This isn’t due to premonitions of the Wall per se, but it is the first recognition of her diminishing capacity to sexually compete for male attention with young women experiencing their own SMV peak years.
During this period women will often make their first earnest attempts to find ways – sometimes by coercion – to ‘fix’ an Alpha into satisfying the Beta Bucks side of her hypergamy equation, or, to seriously evaluate an already committed Beta’s potential to ‘man up’ and be more Alpha, more ambitious and assesses (what she believes will be) his future SMV potential.
Lastly, bear in mind that women in this phase experience this urgency in direct proportion to what their looks, sexuality and command of male attention will afford them. It’s simple reasoning to figure that women who maintain their physical attractiveness / sexual agency and are consistently rewarded for it with male attention will prolong that state as long as possible. Thus, some attractive women may perpetuate their party years until such time as that attention abruptly ends.
The Epiphany and Transitory Phase
I’ve written extensively on these phases so please have a read of my prior posts The Epiphany Phase, Time’s Up and Cashing Out for a more in-depth understanding of what to expect from women during this stage of life.
Between the ages of 28 to about 30 (sometimes later for attractive women perpetuating their party years) women often enter into a more cognitive awareness of their personal conditions with regard to their declining SMV. This phase I call The Epiphany Phase; it is the point at which the subconscious awareness a woman has of her sexual market value in relation to her eventual date with the Wall can no longer be subconsciously repressed and ignored.
It is of primary importance to men to fully understand the significance this phase has for women. The epiphany isn’t about women hitting their SMV Wall during this phase (though it’s possible) it’s about a woman conscientiously coming to terms with a markedly lessened capacity to sexually compete with her SMV-peak peers for the same male attention she enjoyed during her party years.
The abstract exaggeration is to think a woman necessarily hits the Wall at 30, her physical attractiveness shrivels and she magically transforms into a spinster cat lady overnight. Women absolutely (with effort) can and often do retain their looks and sexual agency past this phase; some into their late 30’s and 40’s. However, what defines this phase is the conscious realization that their looks are no longer what they were in their prime. Combined with this is the awareness that they can no longer sexually compete at the same level as young women in their SMV peak for the attentions of men they now hope to consolidate their hypergamy on in long term commitment and provisioning security.
The Epiphany phase isn’t about women hitting the Wall so much as it is about an urgency to consolidate upon a man’s commitment of long term security with the competition anxiety that comes from realizing it’s now she who must to put forth the effort to secure it rather than having it offered to her as it was by the men in her SMV-peak years.
From The Epiphany Phase:
This is a precarious time for women where she makes attempts to reassess the last decade of her life. Women’s psychological rationalization engine (a.k.a. the Hamster) begins a furious effort to account for, and explain her reasonings for not having successfully secured a long term monogamous commitment from as Alpha a man as her attractiveness could attain for her. Even women married prior to this phase will go through some variation of self-doubt, or self-pity in dealing with the hypergamic uncertainty of her choice (“Is he really the best I could do?”).
A woman’s late party years are often the stage during which she entertains the hope that she can ‘civilize’ the Alpha Bad Boys who satisfy the visceral side of her hypergamy into assuming the providership role the other side of her hypergamy demands and is increasingly becoming more urgent for her – most Alpha Widows are made during this period. However, it’s during the Epiphany phase women (conveniently) make the rationalizations necessary for justifying this ‘fixing’ effort.
During the Epiphany Phase a woman’s inner and outer dialog is self-excusing, virtuously self-educational and self-congratulatory.
“I used to be so different in college, but I’ve grown personally” or “I’ve learned my lesson about pursuing the ‘wrong kind’ of men, I’m done with Bad Boys now” and “What happened to all the Nice Men?” are the standard clichés women will tell themselves and vocally (overtly) broadcast, directly or indirectly, to all the men with a providership potential in the hopes of signaling to them that she will now entertain their feminine-preconditioned offers of love, loyalty and dependability she had no interest in during her party years.
It’s during this stage that women will make radical shifts in their prioritization of what prerequisite traits qualify as ‘attractive’ in a man and attempt to turn over a new leaf by changing up their behaviors to align with this new persona they create for themselves. Since the physicality, sexual prowess and Alpha dominance that made up her former arousal cues in a Man aren’t as forthcoming from men as when she was in her sexual prime, she reprioritizes them with (presumed) preferences for more intrinsic male attributes that stress dependability, provisioning capacity, humor, intellect, and esoteric definitions of compatibility and intimacy.
For the spiritually inclined woman (which is to say most women) this may manifest in a convenient return to religious convictions she’d disregarded since her adolescence. For other’s it may be some kind of forced celibacy; a refusal to have sex under the hypergamic auspices of her ‘party years’ in the hopes that a well provisioning male (the ones not realizing their own potential SMV as yet) will appreciate her for her prudence – so unlike herself and all of the other girls who rejected him over the last decade.
The self-affirming psychological schema is one where she’s “finally doing the right thing”, when in fact she’s simply making the necessity of her long term provisioning and security a virtue she hopes men will appreciate. And if they don’t, then there’s always shaming them to think they’re ‘less-than-men’ for not living up to her eating her cake once she’s had it
While looks and masculine physical triggers in men are still an important attraction factor, her desire for a personal association with a man’s status and affluence begin to sublimate her physical priorities for attraction as she increasingly realizes the necessity of these attributes for her (and any offspring’s) long term provisioning. It should be noted that the appeal of a man’s potential for provisioning is proportional to her actual (or perceived) need for that provisioning.
As a woman moves into the Transitory phase (29-31) this re-prioritization also coincides with the adjusted self-perception of her own SMV. As a woman becomes more cognizant of her lessened ability to sexually compete for men who (she believes) would meet her best hypergamic balance, she’s forced to reassess her self-image. There are many feminine social conventions already pre-established to help her deny or buffer this reassessment. However, her hindbrain still acknowledges the competition anxiety that (unless, by effort or genetics, she’s a notable physical exception) she simply cannot command the kind of male attention women in their SMV-peak years do.
Note that the reality of this assessment, or realistic expectations of it, aren’t the source of this anxiety, but rather it’s what she believes them to be. An exceptionally attractive 30 year old woman may still be able to sexually select men above what most women her age can expect, but it’s what she believes about herself, her internalized expectations for her age and party years experience has taught her. And as you may guess this self-assessment is also subject to the influences of social media and social conventions that pander to this same Transition period anxiety.
The Transition
I believe it was Roosh who stated that the only women who complain about men needing to Man Up or how men have somehow shirked the masculine responsibilities the Feminine Imperative society expects of them are always 30 years of age or older. Younger women simply have no motive to complain about what they believe they are entitled to in a man beyond his being ‘hawt’.
What I term as the Transition phase is the culmination of the Epiphany phase’s influence on a woman who’s thus far been unable to consolidate on monogamy with a male who fulfills the role of provider (Beta provider most often) that her hypergamy now holds in much higher priority order. When women in this phase complain of men’s “adequacy issues” what they’re really bemoaning is their chronic inability to find (or merit) a man who can balance the dual influences of her hypergamy.
The urgency for this consolidation is further compounded by the misconceptions most women hold about the Myth of the Biological clock, but in biological terms she’s well past the years of her prime fertility window and conceiving and bearing children becomes progressively more difficult for women with each passing year.
In the Transition phase the competition anxiety that prompted the Epiphany phase is exchanged for an anxiety that results from confronting the possibility a woman may never consolidate on a long term security. However, as always, feminine social conventions are already in place to absolve her of any real personal accountability for this incapacity.
Thus, begins the ‘Men are threatened by powerful women’, ‘Men have fragile egos’, ‘Men are shallow and only want young chippys they can manipulate instead of vibrant, women who are their intellectual equals’ and various other canards intended to simultaneously shame men into compliance with their hypergamous imperative and relieve women of any personal accountability for the anxiety the Transition phase forces them to experience.
In closing todays post, I think it’s important to consider other outcomes of personal decisions women often do make during these periods. As I mentioned in Part I, it’s not uncommon for women to already have consolidated on monogamy (LTR or marriage) well before either of these phase take place. While the experiences may differ, the underlying influences that prompt these phases remain more or less the same. I’ll elaborate more on this in Part III as it primarily relates to the later phases of women’s maturation process.
March 29th, 2014 at 7:44 pm
@jf12:
I guess if that’s your definition. Though I’ve had people saying Alphas don’t commit, Alphas can’t fulfill the provider role and all sorts, which leads to some men who by your definition are Alpha being classed as Beta by others and vice-versa. It’s hard to get a clear-cut idea of what separates Alpha from Beta when every guy and his dog insists that everything he is/wants to be is Alpha and everything he is not/dislikes is Beta.
March 29th, 2014 at 9:33 pm
I can’t wait for part III
March 29th, 2014 at 10:53 pm
re: alpha vs beta. I have an easy qualitative distinction: women are easy for alphas, women are difficult for betas. We could make it more quantitative if you want.
March 30th, 2014 at 2:53 am
@jf12
” I have an easy qualitative distinction: women are easy for alphas, women are difficult for betas. We could make it more quantitative if you want.”
I find that this is the only real distinction between the two, mainly because of the Rationalization Engine (hamster, if you will). If a woman is attracted enough to a man, she’ll proceed to make any number of convoluted excuses for whatever shortcomings (of his) are revealed to her and any breaks in her own frame made to afford him her company.
Interesting that the only inexcusable shortcomings are the ones that don’t provide tingles.
March 30th, 2014 at 4:52 am
alpha vs beta. I have an easy qualitative distinction: women are easy for alphas, women are difficult for betas. We could make it more quantitative if you want.
Maybe not always. I think they’ll do a little game playing if they think you have several on the side. Depending on how conservative they are. Or bitter.
March 30th, 2014 at 9:21 am
Alpha vs. Beta:
I was just thinking about this last night. I was feeling really lonely — and I was feeling really frustrated because I thought that feeling of loneliness was perpetuating itself. i.e., loneliness is very ‘beta’, and feeling lonely was only reinforcing beta character traits.
Then I had the thought that the only difference was this: it isn’t that an alpha personality doesn’t feel loneliness. It’s that they react to it completely differently, to the point where it might not register as ‘loneliness’ to most people.
Loneliness to a beta is a dead end. Loneliness to an alpha is an impetus for action.
There are no ‘alpha’ or ‘beta’ feelings. There are only ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ reactions to feelings. For the most part it’s the difference between being passive and assertive, and high self-esteem and low self-esteem.
What do your feelings tell you about what you want? If you focus on shamelessly pursuing what your feelings are signifying you want, that’s ‘alpha’. When the thought of justifying or explaining your behavior doesn’t even cross your mind, that’s ‘alpha.’
The lonely beta and the lonely alpha both want to get their dick sucked and to bend a girl over the kitchen table and do whatever they want with her.
The difference is the alpha just goes out and does it, and the beta tries to justify all the reasons he wants to do it, and 9 or 10 times out of 10 never ends up doing it — *especially* when he tries to justify those reasons to women he’d like to fuck, in an attempt to beta-game them. And all of us here know how well that works out.
“Just getting it” means you know what you want and you pursue it without feeling a compulsion or even thinking of trying to justify yourself. You’re not abandoning your personality or your feelings. You’re getting more in touch with them and responding to them as a person who respects himself and believes he has a right to take up as much space in this world as any other guy.
March 30th, 2014 at 10:06 am
The timeline is valuable. I can’t help but think that there’s actually significant value remaining (but buried) in that timeline simply because, as presented, it is a straight line that really only directly pertains to a woman who never secures commitment of any kind. There are countably infinite paths a woman’s search for commitment could take, opening up the possibility of a 2nd dimension to that timeline wherein diversions from the “worst case” path of no-commitment are entertained for period where beta provisioning is secured, or alphas are found.
I would imagine all sorts of things could change, the party years might be extremely compressed, or even non-existent. The break period might actually be pushed back because an alpha limited a woman’s vision on her own options. I think the Epiphany and Transition phases probably exist in all women (the wall hits all) but I would guess in happily married women those phases come out less like panic. I should think those phases are more like a sorrowful realization of getting older, and (sometimes grudgingly) seeing the value in her husband.
The what’s-your-price-dot-com data is priceless. I lol’d hard when I saw that plot because it was like a thousand feminist voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
March 30th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
Someone said: “which men ever GET to demand anything, much less demand better?”
Any man if he chooses. I’m a firm believer that it’s every man’s birthright to have sexual choice. That Nature dictates that every man can have options. That “there’s someone out there for everybody”. I don’t mean that in the sappy sense like what you see on a Hallmark card. My belief is that everyone has multiple matches. Most men just don’t believe it.
If there are women that are 5’s, there are also men that are 5’s. There are women and men who are 8’s. And there are women and men who are 2’s. A man can realistically date and have sex with the women who are his genetic equivalents, plus or minus 2 points. A 5 can get the 5’s and easily get 3’s and 4’s, but haven’t you also seen a couple where one person was more attractive than the other? I’ve seen men who were 5’s with women who are 7’s. In some cases even 8’s or 9’s.
As a general rule, each man can date his equivalent plus or minus 2 points. If you’re an 8, you can realistically get 8’s and above. The 5s will be a piece of cake. The point is, there’s enough women out there and sexual choice for every man (hopefully he still makes good decisions and doesn’t become too reckless).
The next point, elspeth made perfectly clear when she said when she met her husband he was partying with drug dealers. This is a truth that, when you realize it, could be unsettling at first. if a woman is attracted to you, you could be anything short of an axe murderer and she would still want you. If she’s not attracted to you, no amount of “right” that you do matters. She will exaggerate your flaws and forget your good points.
It’s only a woman’s sexual attraction to you that matters. I’m still a big fan of self-improvement but I do think a lot of men make the mistake of believing that they have to become this certain kind of person, do all sorts of things, and make personality changes to even have a chance or to have lots of choice. In most cases the average man is alright.
Self-improvement is good. I just think many men out there fail to appreciate what they have to offer. I say improve yourself for yourself. Don’t do it to impress women.
March 30th, 2014 at 2:42 pm
@jf12: Makes sense from a sexual perspective, but from a social perspective you can have sexual Alphas who can’t hold relationships because they’re “socially unapproved men” (genuinely, long hair won’t stop you getting laid, but it can make-or-break a relationship with many women), or who actively reject social control, even though they could seize it if they wanted to. Personally, I’d say an Alpha has the full Alpha package, which would exclude men who refuse leadership roles or who actively alter themselves to become less desirable. Men are as they do, which is not always as nature designed them. Or, simply: a man who gives away all his money ceases to be a millionaire; a man who surrenders all control ceases to be an Alpha.
Yet that’s an opinion, and many would disagree with me, I’m sure.
March 30th, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Softek’s comment encapsulates the whole difference. Everything comes down to the control that one has over his life. Money and status are just symptoms of that control but in and of themselves are not sufficient. There are plenty of millionaire betas (the rich guy whose wife is banging the firefighter is the definition of beta bucks).
March 30th, 2014 at 3:26 pm
The only problem with this theory it’s that sometimes it’s very difficult to predict the future.
Beauty always fade away, but money it’s not always going to come when you are old. You can have bad luck and go broke, or have good luck and become very rich. Sometimes your family is rich, and women know that you are going to get that money sooner or later, so you can be at the top of your SMV in your twenties…
March 30th, 2014 at 3:32 pm
Money will make you more marriageable but wont increase your SMV in and of itself. Marriage to a woman is not the prize because it is essentially a one-way commitment from a man to a woman. Your attitude and physical appearance are what drives SMV.
March 30th, 2014 at 5:42 pm
” The point is, there’s enough women out there and sexual choice for every man (hopefully he still makes good decisions and doesn’t become too reckless).”
A documentary on PBS titled “After Happily Ever After”, the film maker goes through a divorce from her husband, who’s helping her make the film, during the filming of it. When she talks about why her marriage fell apart and why she always started to feel claustrophobic in her past failed relationships, she wonders why and what she can do to stop “choosing the wrong men”.
Never considers anything about herself, other that she doesn’t choose men who are good. Like the garden keeps dying because I seem to keep choosing bad plants.
In other news, there’s a sculptor who came up with a pocket sized dick sculptor so that women will have more confidence.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/03/26/bring_your_dick_to_the_table_a_phallic_sculpture_for_fighting_sexism_in.html
March 30th, 2014 at 6:54 pm
@superslaviswife, allow me to point you to the previous comment and “It’s only a woman’s sexual attraction to you that matters.” and ideas therein. It’s All That Matters. A woman’s opinion on how well I can serve her relationship needs is less than matterful to me; that has *negative* to do with how well SHe is going to treat ME.
“Relationship Alpha” is a woman’s fantasy. No, not even a fantasy. A totally imaginary fairy world that NOONE wants to visit, neither men nor women.
March 30th, 2014 at 7:22 pm
A sexual alpha with a strong frame will have the woman bending over backwards to make the “relationship work”. There are sexual alphas with weak frames and that is why a woman may lose attraction. However, assuming a strong frame, the decision to continue the relationship will always be up to the man. The only way to achieve that mindset is to live life on your terms with endless determination each and every day.
March 30th, 2014 at 7:33 pm
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/12/frame/
Iron Rule of Tomassi #1
Frame is everything. Always be aware of the subconscious balance of who’s frame in which you are operating. Always control the Frame, but resist giving the impression that you are.
March 30th, 2014 at 7:56 pm
BTW, Rollo, great job as always. This blog should be required reading for any breathing male. Is there an email at which I can reach you?
March 30th, 2014 at 8:28 pm
it’s on the About page, but:
rollotomassi@charter.net
March 31st, 2014 at 6:31 am
@jf12: By “social Alpha” I was referring to other people in general and his role in society. A man can be incredibly sexually attractive to women, but not be an Alpha in other aspects of his life. The most obvious one to consider is his relationship with other women and the men around him, as Alphas in tribal environments tend to be primarily characterized by sexual dominance and group leadership. Relationships are just one of many examples where a sexually Alpha male can show signs of Beta-ness. He wants a relationship, but women like having sex with him and hate dating him. He may let them go more easily than a Beta does, as he knows he can always get another woman (or even bed the same woman a month later), but that doesn’t mean he can hold onto them, even if he wants to. Another example would be leadership. A sexually Alpha male may be able to dominate and control women, but may be completely incapable of commanding the respect of other men or of leading them. Observe a man in one area and he may seem an Alpha, observe another aspect of his life and he seems a Beta. Depending on what they prioritize, different people can look at a man and one will call him Alpha, another Beta. That’s where a good portion of the confusion stems from.
March 31st, 2014 at 8:49 am
@superslaviswife, yes that’s what I’m saying: other people’s confusion does not matter because “It’s only a woman’s sexual attraction to you that matters.” That’s the ONLY thing that matters to his alphaness to her.
My prime example is Bill Gates. On the eve of his first billion, in his imperious moods he would a half dozen alpha males wetting their pants, literally, in fear of his displeasure. But he couldn’t keep a female secretary because of women’s disrespect.
The alphaness of a man towards other men DOES NOT MATTER, in our society, in determining whether a woman will provide bananas and grooming to him. “It’s only a woman’s sexual attraction to you that matters.” That’s all.
March 31st, 2014 at 10:36 am
@Rolllo:
Cogent and compelling reasoning and a very persuasive argument.
I have been struck by the *frying pan of reality-checks* — especially the penultimate paragraph.
March 31st, 2014 at 11:33 am
“alpha vs beta. I have an easy qualitative distinction: women are easy for alphas, women are difficult for betas.”
March 31st, 2014 at 11:41 am
Finally have time to read this. Can’t wait
March 31st, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Outstanding set of articles Rollo, you’re on quite a roll as of late.
“It’s interesting that the point where men are peaking in value (mid to late thirties, early forties) is often labeled by women as the ‘mid life crisis’ which I tend to see as a preemptive attack, hoping to demoralize men in this period and lower their self perception of value so as to either keep them (in the case of the married woman) or lock them up in a relationship (if you’re a lower SMV woman than he might get).”
There was no such thing as “mid life crisis” until the modern era. It’s a wholly fabricated concept, almost always mouthed by women, to basically shame a man into continuing to plod on in a job he loathes until he retires, and of course, this is to serve the feminine imperative. Oh, yes, as he’s shamed he may get to buy a new car, or set of clothes, but that is it and he better not question it, or else! A 45 year old man going out and striking down new paths may not be as financially secure as the schlub who mournfully continues to trek into the office for that paycheque after all.
@Dman
Aye, good video. No question that women are assholes. Saw at least three glaring examples of it over this last weekend. They do things to men that men would never do to each other, and damned if they don’t get by with being, for lack of a better set of terms, “empowered” cunty slags.
March 31st, 2014 at 2:07 pm
@Josey Wales
“The temptation for any RP-aware “mid-life crisis” male to take one last go round with nubile young women at the apex of their own SMP is an almost irresistible temptation. Post-wall women instinctively know this and it must frighten the hell out of them.”
Aye sir. I want to share a story, but it will make me come off as a conceited nit. Understand however that this is not my intention, I’m simply relating personal experience on your observation.
I’m mid 40’s. Over the last couple of years I’ve been told, by complete strangers (women, all, under 35 all) that I look like Sean Connery from the mid 1980’s (think the first Highlander movie). It’s quite strange to be told you look nearly identical to a man whom every woman on the planet over the age of 25 *still* considers the sexiest man to have ever existed. But…I never really looked into it, considering it girls being silly, though the frequency of the comparison did strike me as…odd.
It happened again last week, and I mentioned it in passing to my wife, rather amused and chuckling. She cocks her head and looks at me…oddly. Within minutes she’s online, looking up Sean Connery from the 1980’s, then calls me up. Yes, in fact, they’re right. It’s rather frightening in a way, I honestly didn’t buy into the younger ladies’ words at all. My wife, upon seeing this, gets very strange. She had what I can only describe as this look of a rabbit sitting on a road at midnight, staring at oncoming headlights. She asks if this was the only person who mentioned it, and I said no I’ve been hearing it rather frequently since around the age of 40 or so. Pale white face is what I’d call her look, with big doe eyes.
Girl was just absolutely petrified. She tried to cover it up by trying to bring me down a notch on something laughably trivial, which I easily brushed off. Left her in the room with a kiss and “You know, not every girl is as purely lucky as you are, dear, you hit the jackpot” in a “Sean Connery” voice.
In that time I watched her fast and quick realization of our respective SMV’s being laid bare. She’s a beautiful woman, without question, but she knows she’s playing defense now, and she knows I know it.
Again, sorry for the conceit of the post, it was just interesting that this occurred so recently, right on the tail of this discussion.
March 31st, 2014 at 2:28 pm
@Ghost, that’s what’s known as Soft Dread:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/13/soft-dread/
March 31st, 2014 at 3:02 pm
@Rollo
That sounds right after reading the article. It was not done with malice or intent, before I told her I actually found it humorous and was passing along what I considered the joke. It was that stopped in headlights look right after I told her, like she was seeing me as somebody new in her life, then the rush directly to the internet (all without saying a word to me), that was bizarre to me at that moment.
Very little of what I read about on the internet happens exactly as described on the internet, but this was one of those rare exceptions where it couldn’t have happened in a more obvious manner.
It really is interesting how she’s acted since then as well. Another story for another day.
March 31st, 2014 at 3:13 pm
He wants a relationship, but women like having sex with him and hate dating him.
That sounds like a good looking beta, not a sexual alpha in one area but beta in another. Which I doubt you’ll find that way. The women will date him because he’s nice looking, and he’s paying so everything’s free. But the sex won’t be happening.
I say what you’ll find is social alpha/sexual beta. Like the super rich who’s never had to deal with women other than having a lot of money to hook them. (Miranda Kerr and billionaire boyfriend?)
Anybody else see that RSS tag at the bottom of the screen when the scroll is just right and think you got a piece of paper stuck in the crevice of your monitor?
March 31st, 2014 at 3:20 pm
It really is interesting how she’s acted since then as well. Another story for another day.
You know how when a team is on a winning streak or is ranked #1 and they loose one game or maybe loose a close one in the championship, and there’s people who just can’t wait to say “Y’all suck! Over raaateed!”?
She may be waiting for that moment.
March 31st, 2014 at 3:33 pm
@Water Cannon Boy. Pretend I read this sentence aloud, with the word “projected” said snidely: “‘He wants a relationship,’ projected the woman.”
I’ll go on record as man knowing, long pre-redpill, that many players often dangle the relationship card on a rubber band. “I really do want a relationship, sometime, and here’s some Skittles to prove it. I’ll be back next month for more sex, but I’ve got to go now unless you want to prove your relationship worth to me by making me a sandwich, scratching my back, and of course that thing you do with your mouth.” is NOT the hallmark of some “relationship alpha” or even “non-dateable good-looking beta”. It’s just a regular player trick.
March 31st, 2014 at 3:48 pm
That I already knew. I don’t think you’ll find that a guy who wants a relationship, and is considered an alpha in some way, will have a women wanting sex, but not wanting to date.
March 31st, 2014 at 4:22 pm
@WCB, yes I agree. Women would love to lock him down, or even date him “How come we don’t ever go out to Wendy’s like normal couples? Ain’t I your best girl no more? I’ll pay. Please?”
March 31st, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Elspeth:
“…she, even with all her strengths is overestimating what kind of man will marry her.
Women tend to do that. A lot.”
Massively.
March 31st, 2014 at 5:16 pm
The definition of an alpha is a man with options. He may or may not have money. He may or may not have great looks. However, when put together, he has a life on his own terms and women want to be with him. The woman will justify away any of his objective shortcomings to love….when all she really loves is the safety of living in his frame.
March 31st, 2014 at 5:33 pm
@Reese I’d bet a significant amount of money that when girls say that to you, it’s mere hamster speak for them picking up on the signs of game. looks do play a part, but body language, attitude, etc. are also critical. girls just say “cute” cause it’s the only rationale their minds could come up with.
April 1st, 2014 at 3:01 am
@jf12: Ah, I see what you mean now. Used to be the case (and still is, beyond the West and in some subgroups) that a man’s social status among men had massive influence on his sexual Alphaness; however, today, in the West, his sexual Alphaness is king, ja?
April 1st, 2014 at 6:59 am
“a man’s social status among men had massive influence on his sexual Alphaness; however, today, in the West, his sexual Alphaness is king, ja?”
When the women are equal to men in the economy, what’s left to distinguish?
Feminized work places dilute the normal alpha status of the leaders of men. In the past there was status in being the shop foreman, general manager, or owner of a small business or farm. When women gain similar titles and authority those men, the small group leaders, are no longer special, or exceptional. In fact they lose status in a way since women will associate those men with similar men in their own work places, men who may rank lower in the hierarchy. The male business owner with 20 employees who earns 100k annually is inferior to the female lawyer with 3 minions who makes 200k annually.
April 1st, 2014 at 10:54 am
@superslaviswife, yes, I guess so. I’ve never had any experience in which any man’s social status among men mattered in any way to that man’s status among women. At all. Ever. Anywhere, beyond the West and subgroups included. However, I do know ridiculous number of men, moreso than women, who harbor that delusion, that a man’s status among men OUGHT to (in some handwaving manner) force women to their knees or something.
April 1st, 2014 at 11:34 am
So, does any of this (all of this) help “John”? “The 25-year-old shyly reveals that he’s never had sex, never been on a date, never even kissed a woman.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/millennial-sexual-revolution-relationships-marriage
What possible hope can we give him, other than “Don’t give up hope, because in another thirteen years, maybe you can get some woman who is tired of all those men.”
April 1st, 2014 at 11:48 am
@Badpainter: You make a good point. Women with experience “dominating” men in the workforce (be it as a manager or just by being the HR woman who gets to fire agency crew) are far more likely to look down on other males, especially those who share traits with their “underlings” and “inferiors”. The funny thing is, often these women are doing shitty jobs, employed in a non-job, 200% more stressed than a man would be in the same situation and even trying to skew the workload (against company policy, usually) so they do less and earn more. I believe the race to delegate as much as possible started before women entered the workforce and higher tiers en masse, but AA-promoted female managers have gone a long way to making it even more of a nightmare.
@jf12: Think of it this way. [Ideal and tribalized world warning. None of this holds true in most Western countries.] The big hunter is admired because he brings back the food. The healer is admired because he sews up wounds. The general is admired because he guides the troops into battle. This status means little to nothing to the women, who live very separate lives. As long as there’s food on the table, the battle is won and the wounds are stitched, they don’t even need to know who did what. But a man’s status among men is an indicator of his physical prowess, mental capacity and a fair measure of his current and future access to resources and power, all of which matter to a female’s need to reproduce. The man who was well-respected and well-connected in Victorian times was desired. The man who carried home the boar from the Taiwanese jungle was lusted after. The traits that make men admired by men make them desirable to women for either ONS or LTR prospectives. These traits aren’t just observed by direct analysis, but by analyzing the environment too. As a female who has spent time across several Western cultures and around many social groups, it’s easy to see that the females will use a male’s friends to assess whether or not she wants him. The initial impulse is lust but, in social groups, it’s rarely carried-through unless she’s uninhibited or he shows signs of belonging to a cohesive group, or having authority among males.
You only need to see Spanish Gypsy girls all trying to drag the butt-ugly ringleader to one side whilst ignoring the numerous handsome males around him, or French girls obsessing over a gay man who gets a degree of respect whilst the men who actually want to have sex with them are neglected. It’s not just securing resources, or you’d see the behaviours in older, Westernized females as well; the logic seems to be that if a male is admired by men, he’s someone with good qualities, or qualities that matter in the current environment. The British are as messed-up as the Americans and seem to rarely copulate without alcohol, so I’m really not sure what the dynamics would be if we were healthier as a society. So I agree it’s gone topsy-turvy, especially due to the fact women can provide for themselves and inebriate themselves enough to be happier to impulse-mate with anything that has a penis. And the level of respect he gets from other men is more of a heavy nudge in the man’s favour than a driver; she must already be interested before she looks for it. But, in principle, the closer to “healthy” the society is, the more important is a man’s standing among men.
Sorry about the text-wall.
TL;DR: When a woman sees a man as being respected by the men of her society, the assumption is he’s doing something to earn it. In the modern world that is ruined by the fusion of male-spaces and female-spaces, plus “womyn’s independence” and culture of selfish, impulsive consumerism.
April 1st, 2014 at 12:08 pm
re: “a man’s status among men is an indicator of his physical prowess, mental capacity and a fair measure of his current and future access to resources and power, all of which matter to a female’s need to reproduce.” Matter in the sense of correlative, not causative.
April 1st, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Re: status. The winningest Call Of Duty guys are heavily admired by other Call Of Duty guys. The guy with the best bbq wings is heavily admired by other guys on his block, especially during March Madness. The pimply boy with the hardest core porn stash (I know, going back a few years) was heavily admired by other pimply boys. None of this translates into status among women, hence by explicit counterexample the thesis is disproved. Status among men matter not at all to status among women UNLESS there are a lot of other factors, and it is those factors that actually matter.
April 2nd, 2014 at 3:39 am
@jf12: Yet when women are more inhibited, as is natural in a society where men wield resources, the man’s social group, who they are and how they view him affects whether or not he’ll get a woman to settle long enough for sex.
I agree there’s a major back-and-forth between the camps of male and female respect and correlation and causation are hard to define, but it seems to only be in Western society where the amount of respect a man gets from anyone (man or woman) doesn’t affect his mating prospects.
A woman who needs resources and investment on top of sex won’t go for a man who is shunned by those he associates with or isolated from all friendships. He may possess resources, be good-looking and have game, but if he’s a social pariah or frequently disrespected by his friends, contrary to what Hollywood would have people believe, the assumption is there’s something wrong.
In modern society male respect seems to be replaced by fashion among the women who are willing to have sex. Hence why a man with long hair (metalhead length) can’t pull a typical bar/club girl unless she’s drunk and alone or he has a “normal” looking friend with him. Even then, chances are she’s looking at his friend. And I have known it to happen to men who with short hair pulled easily. Same goes for clothing choices, tattoos, etc. Anything she can use to identify how “trendy” he is. His “social approval score” now fulfills the same role as male respect and in-group status used to.
April 2nd, 2014 at 8:58 am
“Normal is the new In” say a lot of women through the years. And yet players insist peacocking is the way to go, especialy for a normal-looking man.
These disconnects are, I think, all the same disconnect:
1. Between what women say and what men say
2. Between what women say and what women do
3. Between what women say and reality
4. Between what blue-pillers want to believe and red-pillers
I think I can understand your persepective, most conveniently for me, as simply being the usual advice from women “Don’t be that guy.” Don’t be that guy that scores chicks in a club. Indeed, women seem to think it would be SO much better for a “normal” man just to find a “normal woman” and settle down into a happy “normal” married life. Right?
The problem in our society is not the word “normal” in quotes. It’s the fact that a “normal” man will be extremely unhappy in marriage to a “normal” woman. But That Guy, scoring chicks, is indeed happy, even if misguided, even if teh womynz are unhappy about his happiness.
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:06 pm
@jf12: That’s the thing, what most women claim to consider normal is actually “most recent guy I saw”/”pulled out of my ass”. However, there are clear trends in how men dress and behave and the closer a guy behaves to what is “socially acceptable”, the better his chances at scoring. When it comes to something longer-term, a myriad of factors come in and, having pondered it, I do think you’re right that the things that get men respected ARE often what females seek, independently of male respect. Seems to be very culturally dependent, through. Still looking into different societies and patterns before I make up my mind again.
Anyhow, what they seem to consider normal consciously and subconsciously are very different. Men who conform to certain cultural standards are automatically included, even if she would call him a creep. A man who conforms to the standards she claims (believes?) matter to her, but doesn’t conform to what other men are doing is excluded, because he’s not attractive.
Anecdote alert: Fiance is a perfect example and one of the men I’ve known who encountered the hair issue. When he wanted to quit the dating scene for a while, he was growing his hair out. If it was bundled into a cap or hat, he got attention as usual. If he let it down under the hat or wore a pony-tail he was let be.
Of course, in other cultures and areas, the trends will be different. But most men who go too far against the flow tend to be rejected and need to work harder or approach very specific women in order to get attention.
And, while you’re mentioning it, don’t take anything I say as advice. Just a discussion.
April 2nd, 2014 at 12:54 pm
superslaviswife: yes, that’s what i’ve seen. the faith and strong family ties (also mother+father still together in good marriage) acted as a buffer to hypergamy. that’s how i view it in retrospect. you could also have a secular family but with a very alpha yet sacrificial father figure who works in the trades, et al, and who commands respect from his daughters. those daughters would also be candidates to make that choice early on…but in most cases, the ‘strong religious family’ is the most common catalyst.
April 2nd, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Discussion is good. I think we’re circling the apex again. I think by “normal” a woman tends to mean “epitome”. The guy who is 10 is the “normal”, the 9 is already sub-normal.
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:35 pm
read the twitter link to the anonymous mom. Then read the link at the bottom about some woman detailing why it’s not good to marry your soul mate. On a site called Your Tango.
Fits right in with Alpha fuks/beta buks and alpha widow. Even has some metaphysical spice thrown in for that special seasoning for the holidays.
http://www.mommyish.com/2012/10/18/step-parents-single-mom-468/
April 2nd, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Wrong link.
http://www.yourtango.com/2014210669/love-stories-did-not-marry-love-of-my-life
April 2nd, 2014 at 10:29 pm
@jf12 –
Difference between Alpha and Beta:
• Alpha looks at what women actually do, learns from it, and adjusts to reality
• Beta listens to what women say, ignores what women actually do, and doesn’t adjust to reality
IMO that is the major disconnect between alpha/beta behavior. Once you start paying attention to the actions of women and realise that you might as well completely ignore what they say, the rest should begin to slip into place. By “the rest” I mean confidence, frame control, etc.
April 3rd, 2014 at 5:30 am
@Steve H: Outliers aside (obviously), I think you’re spot on with religious ties and situations where culture and law take on a religious form. Interesting to consider that the right family structure may overwhelm the predominant culture. Although culture does often win out, even when all the factors are in place. It’s a bit like psychopathic killers: there are many psychopaths who go through hell growing up and never kill anybody. Really, we don’t know why some do, as they are the vast minority with no clear pattern. Likewise, there are many Alpha fathers (secular or religious) who raise their daughters in a traditionalist, fairly isolated household where the daughters still succumb to the external/predominant culture. In reality, we don’t know why some daughters don’t, as they are the vast minority with no clear pattern.
@jf12: Then, based on my observations, I’d have to conclude that either 10/10 men are far more common than 10/10 women, 6/10 men and below rarely leave the house or women’s standards have dropped and/or folded so much that what would have been a 8/10 before now comes across as 10/10. The last one is highly possible, due to how malleable female sexuality is (a woman’s “type” can change radically if you put her in a foreign country or semi-permanently if she falls for a man of equal status but different appearance to her regulars), but would imply that Apex Alphas share the top with the upper end of “very good looking” Betas, or that sexual Alphaness is a continually changing standard. Both are plausible, as selective pressures have been altered, so women may be pushing previously undesirable/less desirable men (previous Betas) nearer the top, and the malleability of female sexuality means they’re more likely to embrace a new “image” of an Alpha so long as their friends do so too. Gradually it permeates the population.
Of course, then we have the final option: the continual changes in female desire. That women are so random in what they like, that every man who isn’t a complete doormat, a social reject or below a 6/10 has a chance of being seen as “Alpha” on any given day, depending on her. Of course, I could now go into dysmorphic disorders and selective vision when it comes to mate-finding, but that would take all day. Summed-up: many women have dysmorphia, which means they physically see the same thing one way on Monday and differently on Sunday. In extreme cases this is what causes many eating disorders. Selective vision is what makes a happily taken woman hardly notice other men or an ovulating woman only really notice the most visually appealing and/or imposing men. Combine the two “filters” and you have someone whose tastes are far too variable to fully lock down, as they aren’t even consistent.
I shall mull this over further.
April 3rd, 2014 at 8:37 am
Re: a taken woman. I agree we can safely discount her vision. I think we’re still talking about the open sexual marketplace and how we can operationally define alphas as those men for whom women make themselves easy, especially sexually easy.
10/10 men are rare but they each get a LOT of women, in contrast the 10/10 women get few men.
April 3rd, 2014 at 9:18 am
@ BlackPoisonSoul – “Difference between Alpha and Beta:
• Alpha looks at what women actually do, learns from it, and adjusts to reality
• Beta listens to what women say, ignores what women actually do, and doesn’t adjust to reality”
I’d add to this that the Beta internalizes feminine imperatives, values and perspectives. Even if he is choking on them and outraged by them, he still internalize them. I certainly did and found myself in a bind within myself when it came to women. I have some natural alpha traits and have had fairly high SMV at times in my life (with no idea how to maximize their effect) but that left me very conflicted about how to treat women. I would vacillate between servitude and resentment, with the occasional bout of dominance. Dominance actually scared me a bit because women almost universally responded well to it – and I never could understand that given what the world lead me to believe about women.
Put another way, that little voice in the back of my head that advised me to treat women like children was right. That sense that I should just ignore most of their complaints and not even take them seriously was right. Sadly, there was not even a little voice in my head that I should put myself and my needs/desires first in my life. Sigh… But at least now I’m free of it. I actually ignore most of the nonsense that women emit now and you know what? I get along better with them.
April 3rd, 2014 at 12:35 pm
this is our feminized wasteland encapsulated. James Franco met a 17 y/o chick, of legal age in the state of NY. He invited her to hookup. didn’t pressure her whatsoever. she committed 2 distinct acts of deceit within this brief text thread. 1) she signaled a willingness to betray her boyfriend back home. 2) she lied to james, saying she wouldn’t divulge their conversation.
Well, a glance over the comments and feedback is illuminating. A few honest, no-bs guys stick up for James. The vitriol from white knights, manginas, feminists, and jealous/bitter/poorly-aging women is overwhelming (evidenced by the amount of ‘favorites’ various comments receive). The American mainstream narrative deems James to be a creepy, pedophile predator on account of this. This is the country we live in today. http://gawker.com/james-franco-tried-to-hook-up-with-a-17-year-old-on-ins-1557491436/all
April 3rd, 2014 at 11:16 pm
Thanks, Rollo, again for this series. I’m referring a comment a made at deti’s article FYI: which are the options?
April 4th, 2014 at 11:32 am
This may have been talked about before (More Men post), one of two thoughts came to me. When a woman goes thru the later anxiety phases, she seems to be able to set up date after date, trying to find that good man amongst the “where are all the good men”. Like the woman with the blog that wrote how great her husband was and then divorced him 8 months later.
A change in behavior, like a light switch, similar to when they are setting up someone for a favor they want done. Thereby tallying a count just like they may have done in their partying years, where they don’t actually date, call it hang out or something else. But the number of dates they’ve been on in a certain amount of time in the anxiety phases is something for a guy to be wary of just like the count she develops from her party years.
Also, seems that this change would be a source of even more anxiety because deep down, since women really desire to be so desirable that they can do nothing and be approached, they know by having to change a behavior to line up date after date is an admittance that the kind of guy that you really want isn’t going to come up to you, even if he happened to walk right by you.
After thought, I think the proverbial woman with the cats is being replaced with the woman with ever full wine glass. There’s something about a pose they do when they’re holding the glass. And also, they seem to get some joy out of the shape of the wine glass. Like projecting (?) their sexiness onto the curve of the glass. The outline of the glass has a gentle elegant flow, and since I’m holding it, so do I.
April 4th, 2014 at 1:05 pm
@Steve H
Is there a post that doesn’t use the word “creepy”? “Creepy” is the new scarlet letter.
If Franko were a cougar on the prowl, it would be depicted as “empowering.”
Behind the word “creepy” and behind the condemnation of Franko lies the unspoken feeling that male sexuality is dirty and ugly, that sex is something dirty a man does to a woman. Even men in the manosphere (especially the Christian variety) unknowingly adopt this position.
April 4th, 2014 at 1:58 pm
It’s feminine relativity.
If Franco is 35 and she’s 17, he’s a “creepy older guy” no matter what his accomplishments or social proof might say.
If Franco were 39 and this girl was 21 (same 18 year difference) no one thinks it’s news.
If Franco is 45 and she’s 27 (Epiphany Phase), then they’re starting a family, and he’s an attractive, seasoned, intelligent (PhD) poet, actor who any girl would consider a prime Alpha catch.
If Franco is 55 and she’s 37, he’s a hot older guy (a la Johnny Depp who just got engaged to his 2nd wife) with the same qualities, maturation, and is magnanimously giving a post-Wall gal a new lease on her SMV and life. Doncha just think he’s adorable?
This is an interesting illustration of how our feminine-primary socialization interprets the ‘appropriateness’ of inter-sexual relationships based solely on how well a man fit’s the feminine-primary narrative according to which phase of development a woman finds herself in. Highlight this incident against the timeline in this posts and you’ll see just how this age-difference-appropriateness social convention aligns with the phase of life a woman finds herself in.
April 4th, 2014 at 2:17 pm
I am curious how a mans sexual market value as he ages is influenced by how old he looks vs how old he is. I am 35 not and so at the peak and a bit scared about the downward slide. However, I have consistently been getting the feedback that I look like I am under 30. about 29 is the usual guess. What happens to my sexual market value when a woman goes from knowing what I look like and what I do and make etc. to also knowing my actual age? Anything at all? A significant drop?
April 4th, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Rollo:
Look at Woody Allen. Even after Soon Yi came forward to say their sexual relationship didn’t begin until she was 20, women still despise him. You’re right, Rollo: Woody (aware of his SMV) represents older male SMV power which women (women older than Soon Yi) find unthinkable (“creepy”?). It’s the ultimate insult to female sexual power – a 57 year old man dumping his 47 year old wife for a 20 year old woman.
Lets tweak your third example. Franko is 45, she’s 27 but Franko is a short, bald, over weight, uneducated, unemployed factory worker. Would the Princess Brigade find that “creepy”?
April 4th, 2014 at 4:18 pm
@JR, I’ll be addressing this in the next post, but I’ll c&p part of it now for your benefit.
Remember that women’s priorities for attraction (not necessarily arousal) are dependent upon the necessities dictated by which phase of life she’s currently in.
One reason I tag men’s peak SMV at or around 36-38 is partially due to their relative capacity for having attained the characteristics and accomplishments that women find the most desirable for long term commitment at about the same time women are the most necessitous of those qualities.
As women approach the Epiphany Phase (later the Wall) and realize the decay of their SMV (in comparison to younger women), they become progressively more incentivized towards attraction to the qualities a man possesses that will best satisfy the long-term security of the Beta Bucks side of her Hypergamy demands.
To many blue pill / purple pill dipshits like to dismiss the SMV realities my graph depicts by comparing the desires of an SMV peaked 23 y.o. girl with the vested value an SMV peaked man represents to women’s overall, dualistic-need Hypergamy. What maximizes the SMV of a woman in her peak isn’t equal to what maximizes the SMV peak of men.
April 4th, 2014 at 4:29 pm
I just wanted to highlight the blatant examples of hypergamy in our comment thread.
From Elspeth, we have “my husband is really not that alpha” for coming from a line of men who are renown for having their choice of women, who had been banging a 19 year old, and who used to party with drug dealers.
From supserslaviswife, we have the definition of “middle ground” being a guy who has had more sex in less than a decade than most men have in their entire lives.
April 4th, 2014 at 5:07 pm
@Pellaeon, hypergamy abounds. In fact, if you think about it, it is imperative for women to be unable to see it, for hypergamy to persist. “It’s not that I think 80% of men are actually below average; that would be stupid. I just think 80% are obviously not worth it to the average woman; that’s different.”
April 4th, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Only people who never had to struggle can afford the luxury of being dipshits and ignoring the reality of SMV. They never had to look at the truth because their lives have never been uncomfortable enough to force them to look at it.
That, and guys who don’t realize how frustrated they are because they smother their frustration with the hope that by sympathizing with the feminine imperative, they’ll get laid.
I’m pissed as fuck about my situation, and as time goes on I just get even angrier. But at least at this point in my life, I’ve dropped the bullshit and have been able to recognize that the problem is that I want to have sex, and I’m not having it.
I have never had a single therapist in my life that recognized sex as important, or listened to any of my complaints about it. On top of that, guys are being shamed for having sex drives, then they’re shamed for having no sex life, then they’re shamed for feeling bad about having no sex life.
It is biologically impossible for women to experience the same level of sexual frustration that men do. Men are expected to shut up and acknowledge how painful childbirth is, and if you judge any woman about that, you’re a misogynist.
But it’s perfectly okay for women to tell men that they’re just overreacting because they’re not getting any sex.
The SMV deniers are a result of that exact same double standard. The only way they know how to think is in double standards. The SMV isn’t in favor of men or women. It’s objective and gender neutral and that’s why these people don’t understand it or believe in it.
April 4th, 2014 at 5:44 pm
Thank you Rollo + Bachelor for your astute analyses.
My LTR’s 21 y/o sister, a mid-Atlantic college student, was overjoyed about a month ago when James reached out to her on Instagram. True story.
April 4th, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Softek – I’ll try to hit a number of points briefly.
1) traditional couch/talking therapy doesn’t work, except to keep your issues chronic yet manageable. Unless you’re suicidal, I wouldn’t go. Did that for 5+ years myself with 3 different therapists. Not sure it was even worth it. Adam + Dr. Drew recommended it at the time, I believed them.
2) Yes you are expected to shut up and refrain from judgement, but tackling those Cathedral-mandated imperatives makes you stronger. Ultimately I found it was usually best to shut up anyway (Rollo’s ‘Suck It Up’ speaks to that). In my LTR, when I am disrespected (it just happened a 3rd time over span of 13 months) I simply make myself scarce. As in the past several days. I won’t cave and I won’t bitch about it. She knows.
3) If you want to have sex and are not having it, have you noticed the falling prices of ‘escorts’ in most major metropolitan areas? A co-worker of mine was in San Diego on business 2 months ago and hired an ‘escort’ off backpage during a Sat. afternoon for 50 bucks. He said she was fairly hot, and she fucked him. Not sure if you want to go this route, but it’s an option. It also acts as a ‘security policy’ on any given night that you go out on the town, and don’t meet a girl to hook up with that night. Rather than ‘going home alone’, just go on backpage, pick one, and call.
All the best.
April 4th, 2014 at 6:07 pm
@Softek, good breakdown of SMV deniers. In the past 12+ years of my writing, commenting and expressing really anything red pill, I’ve developed a refined sense of the type of person who rejects these truths out of hand.
Usually it’s quick dismissive retorts that preserve any need for explanation and insulate that person from having to be exposed to anything that would disturb their comfortable dependency on a blue pill reality.
I want to say it’s intellectual lethargy, but that would mean they actually possess the attention span for intellectual curiosity. Point and sputter is all they’re capable of.
April 4th, 2014 at 6:30 pm
@Softek “It is biologically impossible for women to experience the same level of sexual frustration that men do.” Right, and when the rare woman (such as Esther Perel) expresses adequate sympathy for (unwanted) men’s plight, it invariably turns out she has a high sex drive for a woman.
April 4th, 2014 at 9:52 pm
@ Steve H
I’ve been hospitalized a couple of times because I was suicidal. My experiences during inpatient and outpatient actually made me even more reluctant to seek help the more serious my problems got.
It does make you stronger. I’ve had days where my throat hurt from almost hanging myself and my body would have cuts all over it from mutilating myself; I’d just get up and go to work like nothing happened. Any time I was ‘treated’ years before for those behaviors, nothing helped. I’ve actually coped better alone because there’s no drama.
Now, to bring this back to the topic: I honestly think this dovetails nicely into blue pill vs. red pill reality.
The blue pill reality: wanting to be saved, believing in idealistic, unconditional love. I can’t speak for other people, but in my experience, self-destructive behavior can be a futile cry for validation of the blue pill reality.
You believe in this Disney like scenario, where your suffering will matter to some girl who will magically love you for all the struggles you’ve been through and have all this respect for you and be there to comfort you and support you.
The hardest part for me — and I’ve been through a lot — has been letting go of blue pill reality.
The one thing that’s helped me the most, though, is realizing the honor of the red pill. Blue pill reality is wanting to be like a little boy being comforted by his mother. Red pill reality is wanting to be a man and commanding the respect of whatever woman it is he chooses to be with. When I realized I didn’t want sympathy, that I wanted respect — that was an eye opener.
I don’t want people to look at the scars on my body and think “oh, poor baby.” I want people to know I have lived through shit worthy of respect. Realizing that I wanted women to feel that way about me (respect vs. sympathy) is a current game changer for me.
That takes a lot of the edge off of swallowing the red pill. A lot of blue pill reality attachment, IMO, comes from a tendency to degrade and devalue yourself. When you crave respect more than sympathy, I think that’s a sign of a change.
Women’s inability to empathize with men and men’s struggles in general is a lot less earth-shattering at that point, too. Even in the blue-pill fantasies, every guy knows the centerpiece is fucking a girl you’re attracted to. All the lovey-dovey stuff is fluff surrounding that simple reality, and I think a lot of it is rooted in feeling inferior, feeling a need to qualify yourself, to justify your existence and the desires that you have.
I’m starting to want sex for different reasons. It was all out of loneliness before. Now I’m craving sex more because I feel like I deserve to have it.
Inner game, IMO, has a lot to do with believing that you deserve to have what you want. I’m still pissed off, for example, as I mentioned before, but now my anger is coming from self-respect. It’s productive. I deserve to have what I want and now the anger is a force that’s slowly pushing me to pursue it.
Behavior I would’ve considered fake, dishonest, and manipulative I now see as normal, healthy, assertive, and honest.
@ Rollo
Point and sputter is exactly it. This shit goes very deep, and those people aren’t willing to look into it that far. They’re stuck on surface-level social paradigms and cultural trends, and I doubt if they even have the attention span, as you said, for intellectual curiosity.
The worst part is they’re spreading their ideas as if they’re actually intelligent. People who are just oblivious and don’t care are one thing. Influential stupid people who think they’re smart and encourage a bunch of other people to think like them is another.
April 5th, 2014 at 1:51 am
Softek – I think you hit on the game-changer. Inner game is huge, I prefer to call it Inner work. It is so overlooked in the ‘sphere. I’m relatively new to the ‘sphere, and therefore I’m nobody special, but I come from the Brent Smith school and also 12 years of studying ACIM. Brent has major personal issues, his life is a disaster. But he taught me something that the Manosphere is reticent to acknowledge, even ‘Game’ purveyors like heartiste. ‘Extreme self talk’, affirmations, your story – this is a HUGE part of game and dudes can laugh it off at their own expense. My entire goal is to wed the legit cynicism and profound wisdom of the Manosphere with the unquantifiable power of Inner + outer work that Brent and his (former) associate Jason Treu prescribe. I don’t care how laughable a cynic would understandably deem this assertion – but to hold in mind the primary goal of ‘Giving, helping, and inspring others’ – that is kryptonite in a social setting when it is combined with the Manosphere wisdom. My point is that we can progress pragmatically if we cast a wide net. Wisdom and dark-triad truths will only get a man so far. Outer work will get him further (going out at least a couple nights a week, e.g.). But – Inner work is the ultimate difference-maker. Louise Hay is fucking brilliant.
April 5th, 2014 at 7:14 am
@Softek: I am sorry to hear of your struggles. It does sound like you’ve made a major breakthrough though. I don’t know how old you are, but there does come a point in life, likely highly accelerated by this kind of knowledge, when you realize you are more perceptive than other people. More insightful than the average person: that’s not so startling. You’ve likely always been a truth seeker. But, when its the “professionals,” maybe even your parents, it can start to be a bit unsettling. That transition gives you all the responsibility yet simultaneously makes you free. The two therapists I’ve spoken with recently (one was a friend, the other I was asked to see) were both *interested* in what all this stuff is about. Talk about a role reversal! Anyway, keep on chuggin’. You’re gonna make it.
April 5th, 2014 at 7:42 am
@ Steve H
Thank you so much for sharing that. I woke up panicking and reading your comment brought me down. It reminds me of the term “safe person” that Glover uses in the book No More Mr. Nice Guy.
I remember “You Can Heal Your Life” by Louise Hay was a huge help to me. To my therapist’s credit, he recommended that to me. I also am getting back into doing EFT exercises, which I got into through a friend’s recommendation. I do find that they help a lot.
Abandonment and rejection issues and other personal issues won’t go away with game awareness. What is the solution?
I believe what you proposed is the solution. No More Mr. Nice Guy laid it out similarly too: “Toxic shame” is a huge issue for a lot of men, and resolving that shame and finding true self-love and self-acceptance and self-respect is the answer. ‘Giving, helping, and inspiring others’ is a natural consequence of that.
The reason most men are stuck in blue pill reality is because they’re emotionally damaged and are trying to heal themselves by pursuing Disney-esque relationships with women. Learning game and embodying some dark triad traits feels horrifying to a man who still believes in that myth, because he feels like being ‘fake’ and abandoning his feelings is the only way to get the intimacy that he wants.
The most important message is this: vulnerability doesn’t work with women, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t okay to be vulnerable. That’s what “safe people” are for. For me, “safe people” = the privacy of my own mind and other men who can empathize with my experiences.
What can women do to help us? They can put out. I used to think this was dehumanizing, but it isn’t. And I’m also being completely honest when I say that. If I’m having some serious struggles intellectually, career-wise, or whatever, I don’t want to consult a woman for her intellectual or emotional support. I want her to rub my back and give me a blowjob. If I’m feeling really tense and anxious and upset, I don’t want to talk about it. I want sex. That is really all I need — I can handle the rest on my own.
Women won’t get resentful of that, either. You need something that they are completely capable of providing, and being able to provide that makes them feel good. When you burden them with male problems that they have no real way of understanding, they’re powerless to do anything, and that creates resentment. It’s a turn off.
The Red Pill only seems cynical — I agree with the idea of wedding it with inner work. When I think like this, I don’t feel cynical or misanthropic at all. My emotions feel much more stable and in tact, I have no desire to have some savior heal my pain, and the world feels like more of a place of enjoyment and abundance.
It actually feels like a relief that women can’t understand my suffering and don’t want to understand it, because the only thing I want from them has nothing to do with that. I want to control the frame of the relationship, I want to set the direction of the relationship, and I just want her to tag along.
What man doesn’t want to feel dominant to the point where some woman would want to be a slut for him? Women’s inability to empathize with men isn’t a flaw to be resentful of; it’s motivation to get in touch with your own masculinity and realize that *you’ll* be the happiest when you’re dominant and setting the frame of a relationship based on what *you* want.
April 5th, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Rollo, I have a question with respect to the AFBB formula. I wholly agree with it. Women get off from a masculine body, a masculine attitude, a masculine face, and symmetrical features.
But . . . how do we explain skinny, effeminate men like Mick Jagger and Prince? These men make the pussy throb and melt. Both are skinny, little, and effeminate. Mick can even be said to be ugly.
Now we can say it’s because they’re rock stars. But that’s a cop out. If it’s fame, then we should expect to see women go nuts over Newt Gingrich. It’s not an alpha body or an alpha attitude as neither as either. It’s certainly not their money as under the AFBB formula bucks don’t make the pussy throb and women were melting over Mick before he became rich. What is it?
April 5th, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Bachelorocles,
Look for pictures of Mick from 1965, and consider he’s 70 today. Compare with the average Brit for 1965. Call it 50 years of reputation.
Have you seen Newt’s latest wife? True she’s hit the wall, but they met when she was 27. Maybe Newt’s BB situation, but this is his third wife. I’d bet he could upgrade to a younger model tomorrow if he wanted to.
Both Newt and Mick have money, status, and power/influence in their respective fields. Me thinks power/influence makes a bigger impact than looks since it’s much more scarce.
April 5th, 2014 at 10:14 pm
@BP :-
“the average Brit for 1965″
Sir, I was that soldier.
And what der jongheer von Jaeger had over the pie-faced natives was a certain labile and indescribable esculent .. volition, as opposed to An Actual Realiseable Sexual Threat inna SaturdayNightAndSunday Morning stylee.
Which goes a very, very long way to explaining our erstwhile premier “Tony the Liar” Linton’s obsession with the rubber-lipped Ancient One’s stage persona.
I ‘ad that ‘Ugh ‘Opper in the back of the cab once … complete gentleman.
April 6th, 2014 at 9:34 am
@Tam, I’m certain that the reason girls found him so sexy and exciting back then was the credible threat of infection. Given the band’s bad boy reputation preceeding already in 1965, having made the jump from typical derivative losers to riot-inducing Dangers To Society, Jagger was the good-looking one, hard as it is to believe. Sullen, sneery; mad, bad; a girl just didn’t Know where those lips had been, but she liked to imagine. So he had the whole osculatory je ne sais qui thing going for him.
April 6th, 2014 at 1:50 pm
Softek- Right knowledge and attitude is one part of the equation. Normal or average conversation skills is the next part. Nothing special is needed. Then the last little part is looking for signals when women are interested. The book “Undercover Sex Signals” is good for that. Some of the attitudes in the book suck but the signals are spot on. There are some signs women give that aren’t mentioned in the book but knowing the ones mentioned are really all you’d ever need to be able to notice a woman who’s interested.
April 6th, 2014 at 3:00 pm
@Bachelorocles, have a read:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/06/tickle-me-emo/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/11/case-study-creative-intelligence/
April 6th, 2014 at 5:54 pm
I read the articles. I did my best to poke holes in your arguments. I failed.
You nailed it! It’s the good genes evidenced in the creative intelligence of the rock star — eg, grace and swagger in movement on stage, overwhelming confidence, position of power, pre-selection, self absorption, and charisma.
Thank you. I’ve been trying to figure it out for years.
April 6th, 2014 at 6:17 pm
Social proof also plays a big part in our current environment.
April 6th, 2014 at 8:30 pm
I agree. But what is your take on this.
When I’m getting a lot of sex, women find me more attractive — even without the social proof of women knowing I’m currently sleeping with other women. If I hit a dry spell, I have approx two weeks into the dry spell in which capitalize on the this . . . . can’t describe it . . . . a certain magic the sex gives me. When I’m getting it regularly, I notice a lot more attention, IOIs, positive feedback, smiles, looks, etc. It’s as if women can smell it on me.
April 6th, 2014 at 10:49 pm
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/17/the-pheromonal-beta/
April 7th, 2014 at 12:20 am
@Rollo: I am relatively new to this blog but have read a bit of your stuff and like your work. My only question regarding all of these “phases” women go through is this:
It seems that the most secure and healthiest relationships are the ones where the girl is ‘chasing’ the man or showing traits of more investment towards the man etc etc. If this is the case then isn’t it not very wise to get into an LTR with a girl in her ‘prime’ and partying years? I would say yes. And this makes sense when you look at it in terms of realizing male peak smv is later and LTRs with girls this young is too unstable b/c of there outrageous number of options and exposure to high status men etc.
The problem with this is that it gives us men what seems to be a very short window of time to get a high smv hot girl to want kids with you and to raise them with you successfully down the road. I guess I am just confused b/c it seems nearly impossible to hold an LTR with a high smv girl through her party years and into her years of raising kids etc. If this is so difficult then it seems smarter to date the women slightly older for LTRs/raising your kids–but this isn’t ideal b/c the under 26 girls are the best.
Basically is smart to try and maintain an LTR with a high smv that you already have through her party years? If so….how? OR is it smarter to approach your years of higher smv and assume you’ll get a better smv girl to raise your kids and spend time with…
thoughts
April 7th, 2014 at 12:25 am
More sex, greater pheromonal attraction, higher testosterone levels, the more sexual I act toward women, the more I view women as sex objects thus manifesting a more alpha attitude. More dopamine, greater confidence. This is why the magic cannot be faked.
Nice work, bro.
As for your discussion on sublimation:
“Construction is a sublime male poetry. When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence, as one would for a church procession. What power of conception, what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to Ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” — Camille Paglia
April 7th, 2014 at 4:22 am
@jf12: I only mentioned her as an example of the process in action. An unhappily taken woman operates like a single one, a happily taken woman has a filter, a woman who gets a lot of attention also has a filter, a woman who gets little attention notices men more, etc. Selective vision.
And I have finally concluded that this plays the major part in female mate-selection as well as how women tend to perceive the dating market and the men within it. A woman obsessed with celebrities is less likely to date or sleep with even an Alpha if he doesn’t look “right”, as she’s conditioned herself to only want men who look like her current favourite celebrity. A woman looking for sex probably notices men from 5-10 and keeps an eye out for Alphas, willing to settle for a high-ranking Beta if she can’t find an Alpha for her. A woman approaching the wall notices any man who notices her. A woman obsessed with fashion, trends and socializing won’t notice/pay attention to men her group deems to be “bad”. A woman looking for a long-term partner could be oblivious to any guy’s sexual advances.
Women’s filters are various and depend on her social group, her sexual and dating availability, her interests, her tastes in men, etc.
This also means that women rarely notice what they like in men, because they rarely notice the men they don’t like or what these men are doing. That Delta they just turned away? He hasn’t been forgotten, he hardly existed. That Beta who was ALMOST right, but not quite? He came across as friendly rather than interested. This will permanently alter a woman’s awareness of her position in the dating market until her luck suddenly improves or (more often than not) declines. Plays into the solipsism.
What men with game can do is learn to work around or chip away at these filters, making women who previously viewed them as furniture suddenly notice them, giving them a proper chance. What the, as you put it, “Apex Alphas” have is the ability to chip away at almost any filter regardless of whether or not they’re trying. If the woman wants sex, even if he isn’t “right” according to her usual standards, he picks up on the cue and works through the filter. If he’s genuinely a catch, she’ll chip away at her own filter to get a better look, leaving her more vulnerable to his advances.
April 7th, 2014 at 5:01 am
great post rollo the graphs really help visualise the passing changes throughout the years. ordered your book and left a comment on a older thread about GNO’s.Your helping me get some clarification in this difficult time
April 7th, 2014 at 8:39 am
@superslaviswife, I agree with much of your recent comment. I especially like your mentioning of the automatic filtering being so automatic that women don’t even notice what they themselves like!
But re: an alpha that doesn’t look “right”, “like her current favourite celebrity”. Honestly, bluntly, women don’t operate that way. I’m certain this is what you mean’t by “normal” earlier, i.e. looking “right”, i.e. as an epitome as I said. No woman despises a man for looking like Javier Bardem when he could have been looking like Ryan Gosling her current favorite. Women don’t operate that way, in part because their masturbatory fantasies seldom include faces, which was a surprise to me in the 1970s.
Most PUA behavior, as you said, is designed to bypass filters. The most important idea you have to understand is that alphas do not have to “chip away” or “work through” anything. Women make things easy for alphas. Period. Chipping, working, trying, needing a chance, etc. are all beta.
April 7th, 2014 at 10:21 am
@jf12: Masturbatory fantasies of women don’t tend to reflect on what we’d actually want to do as individuals. The things that feature in fantasies serve two purposes for a woman, as our bodies function differently than those of men.
[Text-wall alert. Skip down if you don’t care to know the two sides to women’s arousal response.]
A woman’s body has two different mechanisms for arousal. One is the protective measures: lubrication, swelling of the vaginal walls, angling of the hips, etc. These can be triggered by ovulation, imagery that implies sex is about to happen (even violent rape or primates mating), or contact that implies sex is about to happen. This stage of arousal can start whether or not the woman is actually horny and is mostly an environment-based feedback loop: sex may happen soon –> body prepares itself to avoid damage.
The other are the promotive measures: erect clitoris, extra sensitivity in the vaginal walls (that are pretty much dead to the world the rest of the time), lowering of the cervix, the rest of the posture alters to push the chest out slightly, she can even become more prone to blushing. These are to encourage her to seek sex and to send signals to males showing she’s willing. This stage of arousal can start and continue even if the first stage hasn’t happened. It’s more of a mental and hormonal feedback loop: she is ready to mate and around suitable partners.
To kick-start one or the other is easy. Just put her around people having sex or make her think she’s about to be raped and the first starts instantly. Put her around attractive, strong men and the second starts instantly. To start both you usually need both sides to be met: put her around attractive, strong men who are giving off sexual signals, or in a private room with one of them.
However, without the attention bestowed on her, continual imagery feedback, or something else that implies she’s about to have sex, the first stage dries up VERY quickly. For masturbation, this is no good. It’s being incredibly horny, but not being able to masturbate because physical contact either feels numb or hurts. Hence the exaggerated imagery.
Picturing things getting gradually more violent, involving more men, involving strangers or being restrained, etc keeps the body in the first stage long enough to carry out the act. And bear in mind that it is exaggeration. Most women like rough sex. We exaggerate it into rape fantasies. In case of a real rape, most of us would happily stab the man before he got anywhere. Some women like light bondage. They may exaggerate it into being fully tied down and beaten. Yet they will likely never perform that fantasy, and few enjoy it when they do. When with a man most women wouldn’t do 1/8 of what they have at some point imagined whilst masturbating, but that’s because they don’t need to: they have a man. That’s all it takes to keep us aroused outside of fantasy-land.
I hope that explains the weirdness of female fantasies.
[End of text wall.]
Ah, with appearances you’re making one mistake.
Men value a nice body and a pretty face as the most important physical characteristics of a woman.
Women value face, body, hair, scent, casual movement, height and clothing almost equally, yet they all make up the “appearance” category. Hence, a man having a slightly uglier (or even much uglier) face, but ticking the other boxes is all it takes for her to alter her standards. A tall, dominant man with a reasonable physique and an attractive face can stop women from approaching him by having the “wrong” hair, clothing and scent. (Tricks the fiance used when taking his break from the dating scene. Approached very, very rarely post alteration of dress, hair and deodorant, despite his success when “normal”.) And her desperateness, the males available and her self-esteem all play a part in how quickly she lowers the filter for a 5, a 6, a 7, an 8 or a 9.
Your definition of a sexual Alpha is far more absolute than mine is. I’d say the category you call “Apex” are the ones where sexually receptive women drop their own guard and that, especially in the modern dating scenes, a number of Alphas have to at least break through the filter to get most women’s attention. By your definition, there are no Black Alpha men in Bristol, for example. Or no thin Alphas in London. Women in those places don’t approach them and tend to put their guard up against them when approached. Yet these men, if they’re Alpha, only need to go through a few minutes before they start to disarm more receptive women. A Beta Black man in Bristol, on the other hand, stands no chance with most women there.
I understand what you mean, I just think we have a terminology conflict here.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:01 am
It seems significant to me that Luke Bryan is having his moment in the sun at age 37.
http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/luke-bryan-chugs-beer-takes-tequila-shot-on-the-ellen-degeneres-show-with-employee—-see-who-wins-201434
April 7th, 2014 at 11:09 am
Re: relative alphas. Yes, there is such as thing as relative ease. But there is also absolute ease.
In addition to facial surgery becoming much more popular for men, I foresee a return to masque events among the bored and jaded classes. Women seem to be much more willing to be aroused by a masked man, presumably imagining he’s better looking than he is, than by an almost-good-looking man.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:15 am
@Will, I’ll address this in part IV of this series when I sum up the chart.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:18 am
@superslav,
http://therationalmale.com/2013/02/21/genetic-celebrity/
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/13/have-a-look/
April 7th, 2014 at 11:20 am
@jf12: Yes. It seems we agree there are a small group that enjoy absolute ease and a slightly larger group that enjoy relative ease, we just don’t agree on the terminology.
“Language disguises the thought; so that from the external form of the clothes one cannot infer the form of the thought they clothe, because the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized.” Etc. [Wittgenstein. I won’t be presumptuous/snobbish enough to assume everybody has read his works or that it means anything anymore.]
Masks I can’t understand as I never saw the appeal. I’ll assume you’re right and that it’s like with lights-out-only sex: that the woman is bored or disgusted by her partner and needs to resort to fantasy-land to stay aroused. In other words, it’s assisted masturbation to her.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:22 am
@Rollo: Thank you. I’ll read them now, as I cook.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:38 am
@saintNick< I read your comment on the GNO post:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/27/girls-night-out/comment-page-2/#comment-35658
My advice? Eject now! At 26 y.o. you shouldn't even consider monogamy, and certainly not with an overweight woman predisposed to GNOs in spite of her physical condition. There is no reason you should continue with this girl.
Get my book and/or read all of the post in Best of RM Year One and then Year Two. They're linked at the top of the blog.
You need to kill your inner Beta. This is why you're having such difficulty in doing what you know you need to do – NEXT.
Get out now, before she has an "accidental" pregnancy on the rare occasion she decides to allow you to fuck her fat body. At 26 you've got a lot of SMV development still ahead of you, don't throw that opportunity away on an overweight woman who's just entering her Epiphany Phase and will want to lock down the only Beta provider she thinks is her 'sure thing' – and later dispose of you when your usefulness has served her purpose.
April 7th, 2014 at 11:54 am
I won’t immediately launch into one of my detailed stories, but earlier this year I engaged a number of high school girls in a debate about the meaning of Sara Bareilles’ Brave song. The girls were unanimously convinced that Sara was desperately wanting some beta male, that she liked, to speak up and let her know how much he liked her. As if that ever works for a beta, and as if women “like” betas anyway. Naturally, I was correct, that she was encouraging some guy she DIDN’T like to go ahead and try for someone else. In this case another guy.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sara-bareilles-how-a-rough-586403
It is interesting for this article’s topic that Bareilles has progressed from alpha-longings at age 27 (with “Love Song”), through beta-white-knight disparaging (“King of Anything”) at age 30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Anything
and now post-Wall being a sort of fag hag (“Brave”) and “I’m ready now, if anyone’s interested. Hello?” (“I Choose You”) at age 34. I expect her next compilation to be about cats.
April 7th, 2014 at 12:02 pm
Re: “the external form of the clothes is constructed with quite another object than to let the form of the body be recognized.” Believe it or not, this statement in almost exactly this language is part of our Pentecostal doctrine on holiness standards. Clothing is intended to coverup and disguise.
April 7th, 2014 at 12:28 pm
@jf12 another singer who’s songs belie the SMV progression is Katy Perry, now 29, done with marriage #1 (such as it was) and entering the transitory phase.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/04/five-minutes-of-alpha/
April 7th, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Part III? Come on, man!
April 7th, 2014 at 4:12 pm
posting tonight, had a rough last week.