Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 


210 responses to “Owed Sex

  • Ace Haley

    Of course men aren’t “owed” sex. Women aren’t “owed” your money either but you NEVER see anyone say that.

    The trope about men not being owed sex has already reached a level where it’s all about rubbing it in on men who don’t feel their hard work and all that other jazz is appreciated. It’s a defense mechanism for women who feel like pieces of shit for not giving those reliable guys trim. It’s too bad I have to say it that way but that’s the way this all sounds like to me.

  • jf12

    “throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity.”

    True. And the most decisive alternative was the patriarchy.

  • jf12

    She’s literally right that “over time, nothing is sexier” because by then the old woman will prefer nothing to anything.

  • jf12

    Roughly speaking the abundance mentality is precisely an entitlement mentality: by experience he knows he can get sex from another woman so he feel entitled to sex from the class of objects (objectification) exemplifying Woman. And this is exactly what works: treating women as unspecial sex objects entitled to nothing except being treated as interchangeable.

    What does NOT work is treating a woman like she is entitled to be special.

  • Wanderer

    While I have read all of your material, this post finally makes clear to me why there are so many men (Including myself to a certain degree… though much more self-aware) who possess a beta provider mindset as opposed to a dominant alpha mindset…

    …Women will naturally sexually prefer men with dominate genes and behavior (Alpha) over a man with dominant provisioning (Beta provider) since the legal/financial framework of the western world practically guarantees that a woman is provided for in all of her “security” areas of life…

    This much has been obvious to me for a good while now. But it is the realization that the social/economic climate has changed faster (and has benefited women via feministic lobbying) than the values we teach to the sons of the world, which explains why so many men are left in the dark in what women prefer sexually. God bless the manosphere, I suppose.

    But it leaves a pertinent question on my mind, “What happens when men realize women’s sexual preference in the ‘Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks’ dichotomy?” With information at the fingertips of men via the internet it can only be a matter of time before there is a huge social shift for men learning to behave in an Alpha mindset. Can four billion alphas exist on the same planet? History says, “No.”

  • Urban Meyer

    Sandberg’s advice to girls is perfect: slut it up in your party years because there will be a “good man” waiting for you when you’re ready to settle down. Kanye West even brags about being the amazing beta in the song “I won” talking about marrying Kim Kardashian.

    “I made it over nba, nfl players. So every time I score it’s like the Super Bowl”

  • Will

    Couple things:

    I think it’s more that once you are in a relationship the man feels happiest and best when he has control over his girls physicality (I.e. He can have sex with her whenever and she treats him like a king and sexes him). B/c that’s how it should be. Women sex their man to keep him coming back (think primal level).

    So yes I think in healthy relationships the girl won’t make sex an issue.

    But Rogers had the whole “courtship” part of it confused. I’ve been so so sickingly beta with a girl and she still let me hook up with her…I just learned the hard way. He never even attempted “courtship”.

    The problem I have with the beta bucks alpha fucks theory (and I fully agree and believe it) is this:

    You could easily reverse the script and say men have a “spread your seed to everything” theory b/c that’s how we operate we want sex with a variety. BUT I think that as men we have all experienced that one girl that made us say “wait I can hold off on these urges for this chick maybe” and so we do.

    I think the same idea might apply to girls where if they get in a relationship or hook up with a guy they can hold back from those urges and that’s what the “hard part” of a relationship is b/c you can only control your urge and not the counterpart, but you can influence it with game and by being able to see red flags.

    ALSO if a girl fucks you somewhat consistently doesn’t that already mean you stepped foot in her alpha threshold so you cleared that? Idk.

    Just like how she’s an 8 so we would fuck.

  • TC

    Women are right, they don’t owe men sex. But that goes both ways. Men don’t owe women any long term material or physical support either. They can fix their own cars, kill their own spiders, check for intruders and pay for their own retirement. Feminism has been nothing but a blatant attempt by women to shirk their traditional responsibilities while still receiving all the benefits. While many men are still stuck in the provider mindset, many more have wised up. Is it any wonder that anti-depressant use by American women is way up?

  • evilwhitemalempire

    Here’s a question that will have them livid.

    If rape is all about power and not sex then what’s so rapey about men thinking they’re owed sex?

    For years they’ve been saying rape is about power and nothing to do with sex in order to deny rapists what we might now more effectively articulate as the ‘Pity of Rodgers’.

    This is because the ‘Pity of Rodgers’ has always been an embarrassment for feminists as they’ve tried passing themselves off as sexual egalitarians.

    The rape=power and ONLY power meme was intended to dehumanize alleged rapists.

    With the ‘Pity of Rodgers’ problem out of the way they could then nullify any defense that a woman ‘had it coming’ because she dressed or acted provocatively.

    Nullifying the ‘Pity of Rodgers’ gave women carte blanche to behave as maliciously and cruelly as the pleased without consequences of ANY kind.

    We have, in this Elliot Rodgers fiasco, an opportunity to pin them down on this issue.

    If they continue on with the rape=power not sex line then we ask them what’s wrong with the idea that men are owed sex? (not like were raping them LOL)

    If they redact 20+ years of feminist rhetoric and admit what everyone knows perfectly well to be true, that rape is about power AND getting sex,then they’re once again confronted with the ‘Pity of Rodgers’ and their culpability in it.

  • Zelcorpion

    Ah wonderful:

    The entitlements or expectations of both genders are inborn. Practically all women expect some White Knight to assist her as she attacks a man at a bar or in school. They also expect someone to find her attractive and be willing to sleep with her. The pretty ones take it actually for granted.

    Now on the other side the Game-aware men expect a certain cut/percentage of women to sleep with them based on their experience/skill level/attraction potential.

    In my opinion women are the by far more entitled sex out there.

  • alcockell

    So what hope is there for the quiet Asperger man – to get ANY kind of sexual fulfilment?

    Is someone like me destined to only ever be a shell of a person?

    I don’t want to live in that type of world… where if I have to go to a prostitute and feel even more grimy coming away?

  • Mazrim

    I feel your pain alcockell, and I’d say don’t ever give up and you CAN remake yourself into a more sociable and outgoing person. Walk tall & proud, look people in the eye and smile and say hello to acquaintances and strangers alike, and the results may surprise you!

    This whole Eliot Roger mess has caused me to wonder if men are merely irrelevant and disposable to women. History would indicate a resounding yes in my opinion.

    Having read Eliot’s diary in its entirety, it becomes very obvious, at least from his perspective, that his parents were complete failures in his upbringing; and in fact the father allowed his second wife to actually agitate Eliot, and throw his virginity & social awkwardness in his face. I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised this has been completely ignored by the femimedia.

  • kaimwa

    I have a question. I read a post by Roosh. He intimated that you need to be a clown for the post sexual revolution female to get with her. That self improvement and esoteric knowledge are not something impressive to most of them. With this background and more men realising that you can get more bang for your buck (pun intended) are we then heading towards a place where our culture disincentives young men to apply themselves in furthering our civilisation. This then causing a stagnation in that aspect. I do believe that on a sub conscious level the old order created a lot of ingenuity due to the reward of respect and intimacy that is a great motivator for men. Oh dear I have rambled on. This is my first manosphere post.

  • alcockell

    Oh – and factor in being a sexual abuse victim of female perps at 13, developmental age 8.

    Something tells me I might need a LOT of warmth and tenderness inbound in order to not flinch away…

  • One Eyed Drunk

    This post is absolutely truth. I was a white knight early in my marriage. I was in the IV drip of the sex. I then realized I have no reason to provide the beta provisioning, ignore her shit tests, and do my own thing. You know what happened? I was getting laid like tile. Change your attitude, hold her accountable, and give off the abundance mentality mindset. It’s amazing how things change.

  • Johnycomelately

    Cultural lag

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

    Seems like women adapted to unrestrained hyperagamy changes rather quickly as the benefits were experienced immediately and directly, the pill, abortion, welfare, affirmative action, no fault divorce etc.

    Whereas for men it’s taken far longer for the changes to take effect due to their indirect nature.

    It will be interesting to see how long it will take for men to adapt, but some changes show there is a tectonic shift, low marriage rates, increased cohabitation, lower economic achievement, MGTOW, lower home purchases etc.

    As adapted male cultural sign posts spread (redpill, manosphere, PUA, MGTOW etc.) it shouldn’t be long before they catch up.

    The Elliot’s of the world may be the last vestiges of a bygone era.

  • deti

    A woman is not entitled to commitment from any man. A woman is not entitled to any man’s money, time, resources, attention or sexual fidelity.

  • Nathan

    The old order ethis is/was better. It worked. That is of a bygone era because men allowed religion to be thrown away.

    Faith of out FATHERS

    the old ethic “order” and religion were inseparable.
    You don’t believe me?
    Look at Iran.

  • deti

    If we are going to say that men are not entitled to sex (they’re not) and don’t ‘deserve’ sex (they don’t), then we must also say that women are not entitled to, and don’t ‘deserve’, commitment, time, money, resources, attention, or fidelity.

    Also, someone at Dalrock’s said this: If we as a society say that men are not owed sex for anything they give, (be that commitment or something else), then the converse of that must also be true, and it is:

    Women are not owed anything for the sex they give men.

    That’s not much to construct a social order upon, but it’s what we have now.

    It’s been made pretty clear now that if men want sex or anything else from women, they have to earn it. They have to prove their worthiness. Men “deserve” sex only to the extent that a woman (women) deem them worthy of sex. If a man has sex with a woman, she has deemed him worthy to receive it; she has declared (implicitly) that he “deserves” her sexual favors. We do not confer worthiness on ourselves; we “deserve” what we get only to the extent someone else believes we “deserve” or have earned it.

    By the same token, women “deserve” commitment only if men deem them worthy of it. She cannot confer that worthiness on herself. Her value as a woman for commitment extends only as far as the highest value man willing to offer it. If a man offers himself long term or marries her, he has declared that she “deserves” his commitment, time, money, attention, resources and sexual fidelity.

    Distinguish this from “entitlement”, which means that you don’t have to do anything to deserve or earn the benefit. The goodie is given to you simply because you exist; simply because you breathe.

    But no one is “entitled” to anything from anyone else; at least not anymore. Not only are men not entitled to sex and women not entitled to commitment, it seems no one is entitled to common courtesy, common decency or basic human respect. But, that’s another story.

    The “where have all the good men gone” pieces we’ve seen over the last 30 years, as well as the Churchian rants at men to “man up and marry the sluts”, are really just female self-assessments of “worthiness” and “entitlement”. They are really saying “I am worthy of commitment!” “I am entitled to commitment!” Even baby mamas and ex carouselers say this — they’re entitled to a man’s investment and commitment simply because they’re female. They’re entitled to a man simply because they exist.

  • Jeremy

    So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

    Yep. Also, your exposing of Sandberg’s ignorance was fantastic.

    Women say: “When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

    Women do: Alphas who treat them like shit.

    Sorry Sherry and women like her, despite all your attempts at programming men, they instinctively realize when they are second-class-citizens. They know that those spinsters they married before they hit the wall have a thousand-cock stare. They know that on the list of people their woman was ever attracted to, they came LAST. They may not think these things consciously, but they absolutely do affect the subconscious, and that’s where you get your crazy-male murder-suicides.

  • SGT Ted

    The mistake you are all making is listing “rape” in with what are otherwise legitimate and non-criminal cultural restrictions and permissions of sexual conduct that are considered to be a normal part of the broad range of sexual transactions that are ever changing and malleable.

    You draw a target on yourselves when you make the assertion that rape is all a part of that. Sorry, but rape isn’t a part of that, however you slice it. Rape is a violent crime, not a “mating strategy”.

    Self inflicted wound. Own Goal. Don’t do it, it come across as cluelessly dumb and further justifications aren’t going to work either.

  • Steve H

    Men are the true romantics, right? I just heard the song ’100 Ways’ by James Ingram on one of my nostalgia radio stations. What a lovely song and sentiment. It appeals to me.

    But I doubt it appeals as much to your garden-variety modern-day woman, for whom it was intended. (Ok, the song is 30+ years old. I can’t relate to how things were back then.)

  • SGT Ted

    “Women are right, they don’t owe men sex. But that goes both ways. Men don’t owe women any long term material or physical support either. They can fix their own cars, kill their own spiders, check for intruders and pay for their own retirement. Feminism has been nothing but a blatant attempt by women to shirk their traditional responsibilities while still receiving all the benefits.”

    Agree totally.

  • Jeremy

    I just had a sort of depressing thought.

    If men are the true romantics, then realistically men who write/sing love songs are almost no different than skanks. They’re exposing everything women’s hypergamy predisposes them to want to see from a man, and gaining female attention from it. Women who find themselves lusting over such men are simply following instinct, as instinctive as a man’s wandering eye.

  • roe

    Alcockell – Hi – I’ve seen you around and identify strongly, as someone who’s a bit of a sperg myself (one of my kids is officially diagnosed high-functioning autistic). Let me give you some advice, FWIW:

    Stop reading the manosphere. Seriously, the alpha thing is fine as an aspirational model but you aren’t in a mental frame where you can implement it. Reading it will only discourage you. The doom and gloom and biomechanics are only part of the story – you need to make a virtue-based relationship your goal.

    IIRC, you’re in therapy to deal with the trauma of your past – be patient. It’s going to take some time (IMO) for you to reconnect with your emotions.

    Humbly suggest you start listening to Stefan Molyneux’s call-in shows. You may find them enlightening and helpful. He’s also very reality-based in terms of how modern mating works.

    If you’re on facebook or some other social-media thing we can connect there if you want.

  • jf12

    @Steve H, women love to imagine themselves as appreciative of romance. It’s possible that women really do recognize that they ought to love betas better, even though we know women can’t.

  • Jeremy

    @alcockell

    I was about to disagree with Roe and his suggestion to stop reading the manosphere. But after reading your second comment, I’m forced to agree. You’ve been sexually abused by women, so much of what the men of the manosphere say may sound wholly alien and incomprehensible. You reading the manosphere and trying to use game sounds like sexually liberated women trying to convince a female rape victim that she should be out at bars giving indications of sexual interest to men.

    Make sure you’ve gotten past the abuse, make sure you can see women for what they truly are (not abusers, just humans badly following instincts like the rest of us) before even attempting anything the manosphere has to say.

  • roe

    Cosigned, Jeremy. It’s not that sphere can’t help, but that he needs to get to a place emotionally where the sphere can help.

  • jf12

    Wanderer asks “Can four billion alphas exist on the same planet?”

    The answer is yes, if women treat them right.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @SGT Ted, I disagree.

    It may not be prudent to put rape in a list of criminal vs.non-criminal cultural restrictions on mating strategies, but it very much is/was an anti-social mating strategy.

    Though it probably wasn’t a conscious process, our less-than-civil ancestors definitely used rape as a mating strategy.

    My observing this isn’t an endorsement of it, nor is it “rape apology”, but it’s simply a visceral statement of fact – rape unilaterally removes women from the hypergamous equation.

    Should men forcibly remove women from that equation? Absolutely not. It’s criminal and wrong. However, contrast that forcible removal of choice with the unilateral removal of men’s choice in that hypergamous process now – legally, socially and psychologically.

    Under the pre-sexual revolution old order, cultural, personal and / or moral-religious consideration meant that men had some (though in no way equitable) input into that hypergamous equation. Now, men play no role in that process and are ostracized for even suggesting that process exists.

    Anything that in any way limits, restricts or otherwise confuses women’s sole arbitration of being hypergamous decision makers is equated with misogyny now.

    More than once Game has been called the logical reaction to feminism and how the gender landscape has evolved over the past 60 years. One of the reasons Game is so hated by the Feminine Imperative is because it’s effective in returning some degree of that hypergamous control back into the hands of men.

  • Jeremy

    Fear of discussing rape in it’s proper context is little more than subscribing to the FI wholesale. The FI *wants* you to be afraid to speak of such things. They want this because if they control the conversation, your views are squelched out. Don’t let them do that. Rollo’s description of what rape was (and is still in some countries), is proper and must be part of the discussion he was opening or he would have been missing out on the elephant in the room.

  • A Visitor

    Great article, Rollo. I just finished reading The Rational Male. As you said, we wouldn’t agree with all of it. Nonetheless, it did open my eyes to how past relationships have faltered and why. It’s also made me more understanding of what is going on around me. For that, I thank you!

  • jf12

    It seems relevant to me that an effeminate man presents his lowered libido and feelings of being staggered by being desired by men as evidence of his girlishness.

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/06/male-entitlement-is-not-strictly-hetero/

  • davidvs

    In reply to alcockell,

    > So what hope is there for the quiet Asperger man –
    > to get ANY kind of sexual fulfilment? Is someone
    > like me destined to only ever be a shell of a person?

    Most social norms are really tests, not rules. You pass the test by breaking the “rule”.

    http://davidvs.net/hobbies/masculinity-norms.shtml

    You need not often act upon these truths.

    But you should be able to call out when they happen.

    And you should be able to act on them once or twice, in moments of crisis and courage, in “self defense” when you need to keep control of the direction of your life.

    Please allow me to make a comparison. Young boys initially like martial arts because they like to roughhouse. But they later learn that the most valuable benefit is the peace granted by being able to use those skills.

    The progression is something like this:
    1. I gain self-discipline by practicing fighting when alone.
    2. I gain confidence by practicing fighting with friends.
    3. I gain pride by knowing I could defend myself from a bully if I needed to.
    4. I gain peace by not needing to think or worry about bullies.

    Similarly, knowing the truth about social norms grants the peace in knowing you *could* use that truth if need arose. You can defend yourself when dire circumstances are about to turn your life in a bad direction.

    Those rare and dire circumstances are what threaten to keep you the “shell of a person”. Learn to defend yourself. Quiet and socially awkward people can certainly learn to defend themselves.

    As with martial arts, the truths need *a little* practice. But not very much. They are a much less complex skill-set. You can do it.

    I have known plenty of quiet, Asperger men who are married (mostly to women who are quiet, overweight, pleasant and happy). That goal is not out of your reach.

    Socially, you may always be the “shell of an Alpha”. So am I. I could burn my wick more brightly. But my faith teaches me how to burn a new wick, provided by another, that provides a nicer and longer-lasting light.

  • deti

    Is a married man “entitled” to sex from his wife? Traditionally, and according to the Christian faith, the answer is: Yes, he is.

    Is a married woman “entitled” to money and resources from her husband? Traditionally and according to the Christian faith, the answer is: Yes, she is.

    But as we’ve moved away from traditionalism and Christianity as the dominant moral force, a man is not entitled to sex, not even from his wife. He must continue earning sex, “deserving” sex, qualifying for sex.

    But a wife IS still entitled to money and resources from her husband, even if she is no longer his wife. She usually uses the children to secure those resources and is not required to account for how the money is spent.

    So we have to consider: if a married man is not entitled to the one benefit he’s supposed to get from marriage (even during the course of the marriage), then a married woman is not entitled to her husband’s money or resources (even during the course of the marriage).

    Why ought a wife during the course of the marriage not be required to continue earning commitment, “deserving” commitment, and qualifying for commitment?

    This is why more and more men aren’t marrying — if they’re not entitled to anything and don’t deserve anything anyway by virtue of the marriage, why do it in the first place?

  • Wanderer

    @jf12

    Perhaps I should clarify my question, “Can four billion alphas CO-EXIST on the same planet?”

    If Alpha equals aggression and aggression equals violence, then what happens when all of the betas man up? If men respond to current female sexual preferences, which I think they will, where does that put the trajectory of civilization and mankind?

  • Martel

    @ kaimwa: “With this background and more men realising that you can get more bang for your buck (pun intended) are we then heading towards a place where our culture disincentives young men to apply themselves in furthering our civilisation. This then causing a stagnation in that aspect. I do believe that on a sub conscious level the old order created a lot of ingenuity due to the reward of respect and intimacy that is a great motivator for men.”

    Very much correct. I know this isn’t typically the site for political prescriptions, but now that Beta Bucks has largely been outsourced to the government, we’re in for a world of hurt.

    Incentives matter, and sexual incentives matter as much as any others. Some betas will learn Game and become Alphas, others will just become incels.

    But whether they end up getting laid a ton or not at all, they’ll soon recognize that being productive, creative citizens has almost no relation whatsoever to whether or not they get women. In both cases, they’ll have little to no incentive to do more with their lives than deliver pizzas.

    Men inventing stuff or getting up at 5:30 to head off to the construction site are the reason we have all this nice stuff to enjoy. Men had sufficient incentive (women) to build it, but they no longer have sufficient incentive to strive to make the world better than it is.

    No incentives for productivity, no more productivity.

    A perfect example is Roosh. He was some sort of engineer, got nowhere with women, quit his job, and now gets as much poon as anyone.

    But the femmis are counting on us not noticing how the game has changed. Even if no woman will give us the time of day, we’re supposed to produce new iPhones anyway, JUST BECAUSE. Or maybe because some nice 32 year-old will eventually decide to make man # 26 her last.

    Some men think this through, say “fuck it”, and move to Peru. Others just have some vague sense of emptiness and gradually drop out. Some are very wedded to the old order and will fight like hell to make it work.

    But unless men get rewarded (with women) for doing what needs to be done, there won’t be enough men around to do it.

  • Nathan

    @Deti,
    Of course you are correct about traditionalism and Christianity.
    When Christianity left we were left in a moral vacuum, aka a normless society where base myopic desires rule everything (sex diaster, largest debtor nation, 50% single Mom homes)

    You simply cannot have civilization without norms that are informed by a/any religious system of thought.

    You said
    ” She usually uses the children to secure those resources and is not required to account for how the money is spent.”

    To me, her inaccountability is the most disgusting part.

  • jf12

    @Wanderer. A male’s alphaness or betaness are defined by females’ behavior towards him. If women try to themselves easier for a man, especially sexually, then he is alpha. If women make themselves difficult for a man, especially sexually, making him work for it, then he is beta. If he has to bring bananas for her and groom her, then he is beta.

    In contrast, alphas do NOT have to work for it. Four billion alpha males can certainly kick back in their hammocks and politely decline the lemonade their wives made.

  • jf12

    @Martel, re: “But unless men get rewarded (with women) for doing what needs to be done, there won’t be enough men around to do it.”

    A subtopic at Dalrock involves sexbots. Obviously sexbots won’t “take over” if they are too expensive and out of reach for the ordinary man, but if they become both cheap *and* effective then many men won’t do anything but.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Deti illustrates part of what I was getting at about how men have been unilaterally removed from every aspect of hypergamy.

    Too many guys think that hypergamy is only about Alpha Fucks OR Beta Bucks, it’s really about both, and men’s most marginal influence in either aspects has been unilaterally removed.

    CH pretty much summed this up:

    “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/feminists-loathe-male-desire/

    Feminists loathe male desire, but male desire extends far beyond just whom they’d like to bang. The feminine imperative loathes the idea that men’s desires should even be recognized.

  • Glenn

    @ Rollo – This entire article could have been written without mentioning Elliot Rodger or Roosh once. Elliot was alienated from humanity in a profound way, and if you bothered to read and listen to what Elliot has to say in his own words (he left a 107,000 page manifesto) instead of focusing on what PUA noobs have to say about it, you’d realize that he was headed down this path of social isolation and complete alienation at the age of 10 or 11. He was profoundly disturbed and sick. His own actual story, fully digested, makes one realize that his issues were really not with women and rather that they became the focus of his rage due to his suffering and pathology.

    I think relating to his rage and frustrations as anything other than terribly warped and pathological is idiotic . Elliot Rogers couldn’t relate to or talk to anyone honestly or openly. He was actually not a bad looking kid and many young men with his physical/social SMV who are socially awkward do hookup in college. Watch his videos closely, he’s imitating what he thinks is normal, he has almost no ability to be intimate, vulnerable or authentic or even emotional – the affect is completely flat. You studied psychology, Rollo, come on. This guy would repel any normal person viscerally – male or female. It’s also true that many men are angry and frustrated about their inability to get laid and are “spergs” and never hurt anyone. Hmmm.

    Roosh’s first words about this were dismissive of Elliot as homosexual – and Roosh is a homophobic racist (he’s a big “race realist” too, back up two steps, vomit), so yeah, pardon me if I don’t find him a source worth listening to about the larger issues in the world. Sure, if you want to fuck eastern European girls wandering around in foreign countries while on holiday, he’s your man. But even then, KrauserPUA seems to be less depressed about it. Have you ever heard Roosh go on about his existential angst at the hamster wheel he’s running on that he created? It’s quite sad and reveals a solipsistic nature and a narcissism that I find pathetic. Make some goals in life beyond making money off guys who can’t get laid, Roosh, and you might find meaning in life larger than the next piece of ass you are chasing. So no, I don’t respect him and I don’t understand why anyone would. To me, a PUA is more controlled by women than any Beta because he runs his life around women – which is the opposite of what has happened to me since taking the Red Pill. I come here because you are not Roosh and not an idiot.

    Last. Feminists are jumping on this bandwagon, yawn. They jump on every issue and make it about patriarchy and men and aggression and whatever, who cares? The only policy change they actually are aiming at is gun control and we just went through a 40 year cycle of legislating and adjudicating that issue. The McDonald and Heller decisions made owning and packing the law of the land everywhere and they will not make any progress as anything they do beyond what we already have is unconstitutional, and is settled law with precedent. It took 40 years of concerted effort by people who love liberty to accomplish this and dippy feminist whining has no effect. So let them go blah, blah, blah – there will be no effect.

  • Jeremy

    To me, a PUA is more controlled by women than any Beta because he runs his life around women – which is the opposite of what has happened to me since taking the Red Pill. I come here because you are not Roosh and not an idiot.

    If you consider game valuable, and since you respect Rollo, I presume that is the case… How do you propose to learn game, outside of essentially becoming a PUA for time?

    I think there’s a lot of people who see the letters P-U-A, and presume that it *only* leads to a life of pursuing fornication, when in fact it’s a healthy life-stage that men pass-through (yes, most come out of it. They get bored of simply finding the next lay) on their way to learning how to be social creatures.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Glenn, I’m critical of Roosh’s initial response about Eliot Rodger to illustrate the point that a fem-centric MSM are ready to deliberately distort anything they can reframe from him.

    I may be one of the Three ‘R’s in the manosphere, but, for better or worse, Roosh is the face of “the devil they know.” As decentralized as the manosphere really is, the MSM need a twitter feed to follow for “public statements’ from the ‘sphere.

    FWIW, I strongly disagree with the racism, religionism and much of the political ideology being attached to the manosphere.

  • SGT Ted

    “It may not be prudent to put rape in a list of criminal vs.non-criminal cultural restrictions on mating strategies, but it very much is/was an anti-social mating strategy.

    Though it probably wasn’t a conscious process, our less-than-civil ancestors definitely used rape as a mating strategy.”

    I agree with this. And I agree with talking about “rape” in the context of ancient societies and warfare, as it was quite common and part of the ancient cultures notions of the spoils of war. As a primitive biological mating strategy, ala duck sex, I get it.

    But when you discuss “rape” as a attempted counterpoint to modern women trying to control the sexuality of men for their own ends, it simply doesn’t fly.

    Current law is certainly sexist towards men and I want it changed to force women to take adult responsibility for their lives, but the choice to not partake involuntarily of the shit sandwich that modern feminism enables remains for men. Don’t make your life revolve around your getting your dick wet and there will be fewer to no “women problems” in your life.

    Rape utterly removes choice, which is why doesn’t add to the discussion of how modern FI and hypergamy are screwing things up. Its not that it isn’t “PC”. Its just irrelevant to the solutions to this problem, IMHO.

  • Retrenched

    If you could sum up the essence of blue pill social programming in three words, it would be… ‘Compliance is sexy.’ Serve the feminine imperative, facilitate women’s sexual utopia, allow women to do whatever they want without judgment or consequence, and they will appreciate it and reward you.

  • Glenn

    @ Rollo – Lay down with dogs and you get fleas. Roosh is a racist and homophobe. I don’t associate or quote or flatter such people and you do so publicly at your own peril and to your own detriment. He also emits some horribly misogynistic shit from time to time too, but hey, in the PUA community that’s par for the course. And guess what? Bigots and homophobes can make sense sometimes – so what? I shun them no matter what. I don’t cherrypick. And if you want great PUA advice without any of the bigotry, or the out and out amateurish idiocy of Roosh when he discusses say politics and economics? Check out KrauserPUA. Effective, deep and just about getting laid and being alpha. No grandiose babble about everything in the world, just about how to be alpha and deal with intersexual dynamics effectively. It’s an interesting contrast and probably why my initial interest Roosh waned quickly as Krauser is at least as deep when it comes to Game, but with none of the baggage.

    You have a choice. Continue to flatter and quote a racist and homophobe or don’t. I wonder, in any other area of your life, would this even be a close call?

  • Retrenched

    @ Rollo

    Feminists loathe male desire, but male desire extends far beyond just whom they’d like to bang. The feminine imperative loathes the idea that men’s desires should even be recognized.

    Yes. Which is why they use shaming language to police the male sex drive — calling desire for sex ‘entitlement’, calling finding a woman attractive ‘objectification’ and so on. The goal is to shame betas away from pursuing pre-wall women, so they can spend their party years exclusively with the alphas.

  • Steve H

    @Al – “where if I have to go to a prostitute and feel even more grimy coming away?”

    You don’t have to feel grimy or dirty about it. You have the power to love yourself before, during, and after any kind of sexual encounter whether it involves any exchange of money or not.

    I’m sorry to hear about the hell that you’ve been through. I can’t relate to your particular, horrible struggle.

    However, you are not destined to remain a victim. Whether or not you remain a victim is very much under your independent control.

    Look at Sean Stephenson. Seriously, look him up. No excuses.

  • Martel

    Although Roosh is decidedly anti-gay, it’s Roissy that focuses on race. I’m not familiar with Roosh bringing race up much at all (btw, he’s ethnically Iranian).

  • Steve H

    I didn’t realize how much ’100 Ways’ relates to this post until just now…

    After the singer completes that laundry list of sweet, idealistic, super-romantic stuff, we get to the very last stanza…

    “In your arms tonight, she’ll reflect / That she owes you the sweetest of debts. If she wants to pay, find 100 ways.”

  • Glenn

    @ Jeremy – Why do you think that one has to become a PUA to get laid and use game effectively? One does not imply the other. The PUA makes his life about getting laid. Rollo is a master of game – but not a PUA, yes?

  • Bluepillprofessor

    @Glenn: Get over it. Roosh is a writer and thinker and a doer. He has a lot to teach us. Take what you can and reject what you can’t but don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. And tarring Rollo by association is way out of line and unwarranted.

    @Deti: Your writings and insightful analysis have helped me a lot. I think the solution is for men to go into relationships DEMANDING perpetual conjugal rights before they will commit to marriage. If the wife reneges then you file for divorce. Nice and simple but it won’t happen on a large scale- cuz it’s all about POWER.

  • jf12

    Often you get a more interesting view of something if you turn it around and upside down. Let’s characterize women’s default position as being OWED nonsexualization. “Why does it always have to be about sex?” they whine. “Didn’t we just do it last Tuesday, or maybe the Tuesday before that?” “I’m happy with the sex we’re not having, and therefore you should be too.”

  • Glenn

    I have to retract something. I did spend a bit of time reading up and listening to Roosh in my early days in the Red Pill world on CH. But then I kept seeing these race realist articles – and since it’s Roosh’s site, I thought that he was one too. But after some research I just did I realize that he isn’t a race realist, so I retract that criticism. He’s only a guy who publishes racist crap on his site and makes common cause with racists to build blog-site traffic, my mistake. I actually am published and blog frequently, and I can tell you I would never publish anything on a site that gave a voice to racists, and most writers and publishers operate like this. So, yeah, he’s a step above pond scum wrt racism, but the facts do matter so I do retract what I said about him with respect to him being a race realist. But providing cover for racists on his site is problematic too and I simply don’t patronize publications or sites that turn a blind eye to hateful garbage.

    Is racism and homophobia okay with you guys? Really?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’ve posted this comment before, but it bears repeating, I’ve never done politics on RM, I will never do screeds on race or multi-culturalism or religion on RM for a very good reason – it pollutes the message.

    It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment you associate the red pill with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.

    This is what scares the shit out of critics who attempt to define, contain and compartmentalize the manosphere / red pill awareness; it’s bigger than social, racial, political or religious strictures can contain.

    It crosses all of those constructs just as the feminine imperative has co-opted all of those constructs, and the feminized infrastructure of the MSM that’s just beginning to take the manosphere seriously enough to be critical are discovering this and trying to put the genie back into a bottle defined by their feminine-primary conditioning.

    The idea that one of their own, whether in a liberal or conservative context, is genuinely red pill aware and educating others of that awareness is unnerving for the feminine imperative that’s already established in either ideology.

  • equilibro

    So much introspective self-pity in so many of the responses here. So many obvious losers, at least so far in their lives.

    I described my Alpha remedy in the “Male Space” response that I posted there, and I point you at it now if you didn’t see it then.

  • jacklabear

    “Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.”

    Women claim entitlement to all kinds of things, so what does that say about their mental state?

  • Timber St. James

    I struggle to wrap my mind around the thesis here: sex is absolutely not owed by women, but commitment/provision absolutely is by men (often taken by proxy/government when not White Knighted away freely).

    Here’s a thought experiment about a scenario that would never, ever happen:

    What if the inverse happened in the Rodger case? A misfit, emotionally stunted, mis-parented girl does it all right (she thinks). She’s developed amazing sexual technique, watched porn to know what the boys like, can cook like Martha Stewart… yet just cannot get a guy to commit to her?

    Tension and self-loathing grow and fester over years. She uses YouTube and long-form writing as her only outlet for rage. She buys guns, plans for the day.

    The day comes.

    In the aftermath, can you guess how the media/Matrix would portray her?

    Here’s what would never, ever happen: “It’s disgusting that these girls think they are owed loving commitment!”

    *

    That’s fine. Who would ever think such a thing? You would pity a girl like that and the families she destroyed.

    But see, women aren’t different now–the same impulses have been evolving for millennia and only lately are slightly less masked. And of course we should pity but mostly condemn Elliot Rodger.

    Don’t buy the red herring of equality.

    Men and women are neither separate nor equal. The remorseless nature of the Game only makes me more grateful for the rare moments of selfless love that we sometimes experience.

  • Jeremy

    @Glenn

    Why do you think that one has to become a PUA to get laid and use game effectively? One does not imply the other. The PUA makes his life about getting laid. Rollo is a master of game – but not a PUA, yes?

    You are proposing that there is some other effective method to learning game other than literally approaching lots of women or social situations with a goal (such as emulating PUA’s)? What is this method? If you’re going to ask that question, you must already know some other method. Do tell.

    I’ll grant you that there’s no law of the universe that says you must become a PUA to learn game. The evidence for this is obvious. Some people are just born with the understanding/aptitude to self-learn this stuff.

    However, back to my point, since when does P-U-A mean, “Life of neverending fornicator” ? It doesn’t. PUA could literally mean just learning how to get numbers from women consistently, and going for LTRs from the numbers you get. Don’t presume what everyone who follows other blogs gets from their content, doing so presumes you have carnal knowledge of all of them.

  • Chris M.

    That’s why I love this site, no racial or political crap. I came here to better my life and concentrate on the things I can control(it has helped me tremendously in my personal life). This is by far the best place for red pill knowledge. Keep up the great work RT!

  • jf12

    No man has claimed a right to be found sexually desirable i.e. to be treated sexually. But women have claimed a right to be free from being treated sexually. Literally, the only existing entitlement is that of women being owed nonsex.

  • Steve H

    Glenn – I want to respond to your question addressed to ‘you guys’…

    These are *my views* as I see it, and as I read it:

    On Roosh – like Forney, has descended to some pretty hateful ‘screeds’ out of anger. I give him somewhat of a pass for this because he writes or publishes every day, and really puts himself out there, and in the process of traveling the world and putting himself in the line of fire, he’s bound to be angry from time to time. But it does belie a lack of self-control – and that’s ripe for accurate criticism. On banning homosexuals from posting on RoK – I think he’s misguided, but not necessary malicious or rooted in hatred. I give him somewhat of a pass for it due to his ultra-anti-PC positioning (something I appreciate). But I think RoK would be all the better for including people like e.g. Jack Donovan. Hating gay people is unhelpful, counterproductive idiocy. I’m not sure Roosh ‘hates’ them.

    On Roissy – he doesn’t ‘ban homosexuals’. However, there is a palpable vitriol towards ‘race mixing’ that I find abhorrent. When he’s mocking ‘mulatto babies’, I find it reprehensible. He goes way beyond someone like Charles Murray to not only point out and bravely, bluntly analyze HBD anomalies – but to then ferret out a lot of raw anti-non-white polemics with a rather shocking sense of glee. However, he is a brilliant mind with an incredibly broad scope of expertise ranging from game to politics to cultural phenomena. He is an indispensable advocate for men’s issues and a true leader in constructing powerful rhetorical insights. He connects dots better than almost anyone out there, and does it with a brutal, unapologetic flourish that you can’t help but applaud.

    On Rollo – there aren’t any glaring problems. The worst I’ve heard him called is a ‘male supremacist’ which is a meaningless throw-away ad hominem in my eyes. He is the only one of the ’3 Rs’ who, AFAIK, has retained anonymity. Roosh openly provides his birth name and Roissy, to his consternation, was ‘outed’ in ’09. Not so for Rollo as yet. That’s notable.

    Make no mistake, we are all flawed human beings. I don’t know what Rollo’s particular ‘big flaws’ are, nor do I particularly care. I’m not going to stop reading Roissy or Roosh/RoK because they have some, arguably major, character flaws. We’re all fucked up in some way or another.

    I notice Rollo quotes both Roosh and Roissy from time to time. But he more often quotes Roissy as an authoritative source, which is a notable discrepancy in how those 2 are cited on this blog.

  • Martel

    @ Rollo: “it pollutes the message.”

    I know you’ll never agree (and that’s fine), but I want to leave my $.02 anyway.

    The Red Pill is Truth, and Truth neither can nor will ever exist in a vacuum. The realities of socio-sexual markets and attraction have implications political, economic, moral, and cultural.

    When somebody awakens as to how things really operate, it’s not only going to alter their personal behavior, it’s going to affect how they view the world at large, and the world at large is about a hell of a lot more than just who screws who and why.

    The Feminine Imperative has always existed, but we responded to it differently in other eras than we do today. One of the biggest reasons it currently runs virtually unchecked is politics; a government that does everything in its power to mitigate the potential downside of a woman boinking an irresponsible badboy is going to have a lot more women boinking irresponsible badboys.

    Like you say in different words in your post, we’ve governmentally outsourced Beta Bux away from individual men, thus giving women less incentive to want to interact with betas sexually. How can this NOT be somehow connected with politics? How can the ramifications of this NOT change our economy? How can it be addressed in any meaningful sense without any connection with morality?

    We can make every effort imaginable to disassociate Red Pill Truth from politics (for example), but it’s simply not going to happen. The FI relies on political and economic programs that are enforced by governments, so every potential way to combat these programs will need to have at least some relation to politics by necessity.

    Truth this important simply can’t be isolated, can’t be kept in a bottle, and will by necessity interact with damn near every other aspect of life.

  • jf12

    Woman claims dolphin deserved sexual release because it was part of his maleness.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/woman-who-sex-dolphin-during-3665157

    “She added: “It was sexual on his part – it was not sexual on mine, sensuous perhaps.
    “It would just become part of what was going on like an itch, just get rid of that we’ll scratch and we would be done and move on.
    “I was there to get to know Peter, that was part of Peter.””

  • id monster

    “When it comes to one night stands size does matter, according to a new study – but it’s not what you expect.

    Women prefer men with a wider manhood for a casual fling the research from UCLA in Los Angeles found, while the preferred length stayed the same.

    But it’s not all bad news for those lacking in the manhood department, because girls are more likely to prefer something thinner when they’re choosing a long-term partner.”

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/sorry-men-comes-one-night-3673891

    I lold at the last paragraph.

    Some may disagree with me but I’ve always held the belief that alpha is genetically determined. Sure you can learn game but game can only take you so far. At best, most men can become greater betas or lesser alphas.

    Genes always have been and always will be the true markers of Alpha.

  • scratche2013

    Urban Meyer

    June 12th, 2014 at 2:09 am
    Sandberg’s advice to girls is perfect: slut it up in your party years because there will be a “good man” waiting for you when you’re ready to settle down. Kanye West even brags about being the amazing beta in the song “I won” talking about marrying Kim Kardashian.
    “I made it over nba, nfl players. So every time I score it’s like the Super Bowl”

    LMAO, I never watched the whole kardashian sex tape – did that rapper jizz on her face or tits? Either way I’m sure he is totally broke up about not marrying a c-rate pornstar. LOL, congrats kanye! you won! lololololololololozzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • Nathan

    Martel writes “Like you say in different words in your post, we’ve governmentally outsourced Beta Bux away from individual men, thus giving women less incentive to want to interact with betas sexually. How can this NOT be somehow connected with politics? How can the ramifications of this NOT change our economy? How can it be addressed in any meaningful sense without any connection with morality?”
    2nded

  • jf12

    I think women actually enjoy owing sex to an alpha. They feel he deserves it, because he turns women on. 102% of women erroneously believe that an alpha’s sex drive is higher than other men’s, thereby entitling him to more sex from women. What women hate is *thinking* they can be made to feel obligated; they actually enjoy the actual feelings of obligation.

  • Slothrop

    @jf12 —
    I agree, and by “entitling” a man who she believes is worthy, a woman is really just maximizing her own sexual pleasure by ceasing to be the bedroom arbiter. Additionally, she’s creating a relationship structured that the ‘alpha male’* might consider committing to. So women certainly benefit from this arrangement.

    (* sometimes I have to bite my tongue about all the alpha-posturing in the man-o-sphere. This “entitling” process is very common in teenage relationships for example, and not just with the badboys.)

    As much as the days of traditional marriage are glorified, there were still plenty of cheaters, prostitutes, and bedrooms which turned ice cold.

  • johnnightwrites

    Well, women are not entitled to physical security from men either.

  • JackBlack23

    @Glenn

    Your view of Krauser would certainly diminish if you ever checked out his twitter feed where he frequently professes “racist” and “homophobic” opinions which will most assuredly shock your easily butthurt sensibilities … oh and being a UK resident, he’s also become (heaven forbid!) quite an “Islamophobe” …

  • jf12

    @M3 re: link. Thought for the week: You can never be too unsure.

  • Amit

    @M3 This is not far from the truth. I was in a situation where I moistened a female but didn’t take it any further,,, she went ballistic! When only a couple of weeks before, she was doing the exact thing to me. Obviously it was fine then.

  • gunslingergregi

    TC
    June 12th, 2014 at 3:52 am

    Women are right, they don’t owe men sex. But that goes both ways.
    ””””””””

    exactly but flip the script
    we men do not owe woman sex
    forget about all that other crap below and internalize that
    and say no to some woman for sex and see what they do then

  • gunslingergregi

    It’s been made pretty clear now that if men want sex or anything else from women, they have to earn it. They have to prove their worthiness. Men “deserve” sex only to the extent that a woman (women) deem them worthy of sex. If a man has sex with a woman, she has deemed him worthy to receive it; she has declared (implicitly) that he “deserves” her sexual favors. We do not confer worthiness on ourselves; we “deserve” what we get only to the extent someone else believes we “deserve” or have earned it. ””””””’

    flip the script again
    if woman want sex or anything else from you they have to earn it
    woman deserve sex only to the extent that a man (you) deem them worthy of sex
    that woman before you sex her has to earn your lovin

  • gunslingergregi

    you a man have to be very careful about what woman you give your gift of sex to
    you are not a piece of meat for them
    not a trained monkey
    it is more ego validating for you to have sex with them than for them to have sex with you

  • gunslingergregi

    woman need sex more than men
    when have you seen a woman without a man taking care of her sexual needs?
    and you find out this reality of life when you say no to them

  • Che

    @Deti… “So we have to consider: if a married man is not entitled to the one benefit he’s supposed to get from marriage (even during the course of the marriage), then a married woman is not entitled to her husband’s money or resources (even during the course of the marriage).
    Why ought a wife during the course of the marriage not be required to continue earning commitment, “deserving” commitment, and qualifying for commitment?”

    If not providing sex to her husband, a woman definitely should not be entitled to a man’s resources. But children complicate this picture immensely, as they most definitely are entitled to a man’s resources regardless of whether the wife provides sex or not…

    Athol writes frequently of the AAAAF wife…The wife that gets an A in all aspects of the relationship (raising children, taking care of the household, etc.), but gets an F in the sex department. My guess is that this is a fairly common dynamic in many marriages.

    I’m more than happy to provide my financial (provisioning) resources for the proper raising and caring for my children, taking care of the household… Those things where the wife truly does get an A plus.

    But increasingly I find myself wondering why I should give a shit about fidelity to a spouse that provides infrequent sex. Why even bother fighting that battle? In other words, I’ll continue to provision so you can take care of the children and do the other things where you get an A, but I will take care of my sexual needs elsewhere.

    The strange dynamic I have is that while I was a beta for way too long in my marriage, I am now increasingly alpha outside of it. Changing to an alpha mindset within a marriage where the beta “script” has been written, doesn’t really work IMHO. There’s too much history.

    Even Athol concedes as much by pointing out that no matter how successful you are, the sex will never be better or more frequent than it was at the beginning of the relationship.

    OTOH, I have women literally throwing themselves at me now that I understand how they work and understand inner game – swagger, flirting, aloofness, etc. — and while I haven’t availed myself of the opportunities yet, its very tempting. (Parenthetically, these very same inner game strategies that work outside the marriage fall completely flat within it because they appear so incongruous or “faked” to the wife).

    After all, if I’m safe, discreet, don’t shove my wife’s face in it, and continue to “provision” for those things that are clearly most important to my spouse (and where she gets an A) is it really so unethical or immoral to go outside of the marriage to get the one thing she doesn’t provide?

    If the rules are that I’m no longer entitled to sex with my wife in exchange for provisioning, fine…. I’m still prepared to meet her more than halfway: I’ll continue to provision, but will take care of my sexual needs elsewhere. And I’ll do so without any guilt.

    What am I missing?

  • jf12

    @Che, re: “Changing to an alpha mindset within a marriage where the beta “script” has been written, doesn’t really work IMHO.”

    I wholeheartedly agree without any caveats or reservations whatsoever. Whenever a woman has treated you as a beta, she is irretrievably lost to you forever. Whatever you two might have had, whatever further heights of destiny the relationship should have achieved, she destroyed it.

    Rollo has made the same point repeatedly but more guardedly, something to the effect that a new relationship is always going to be easier on you.

  • jf12

    gunslingergregi makes an interesting albeit incorrect observation
    “woman need sex more than men
    when have you seen a woman without a man taking care of her sexual needs?
    and you find out this reality of life when you say no to them”

    Let’s rewrite this a little, however. Most women cannot be bothered to masturbate except irregularly at most, especially if in a relationship. Her body does need to get off, but her brain is mostly disconnected from her body. Her man is the person who gets her off, almost entirely due to his own desire and his own perseverence.

    Hence sexually women require the presence of men to a much greater extent than men require women. And women are guaranteed that a man, some man, will be willing to exert himself to get her off. So almost no woman, compared to all men, can conceive of reacting properly to being turned down.

  • The Burninator

    @Che

    What am I missing?

    Nothing, you sum it up rather succinctly. Women screech on about infidelity in males and how evil and wrong it is, but are absolutely blind to how equally evil and wrong withholding sex is in the course of a marriage. They want to have 100% control over the husband’s sexual options while simultaneously denying him the one option he has. They are basically sadists, and society is structured around letting them get away with it.

    In your shoes I’d say go for it, under the context you outlined. In the past I’d caution “Be careful though, once caught the state will eat you alive at her request” but these days I figure it’s going to happen to you whether you’re faithful or not, so why not do what you will?

  • John LaPre

    @Glenn

    From Krauser’s FAQ:

    Are you racist / sexist / homophobic?

    “Yes. That said, I reject the labels because rathe rthan describing any kind of character trait or reality the “-ist” labels are really just smear weapons to shut down debate and force compliance of the subject in his own destruction. The worst discrimination in the UK is visited on white straight males. That’s not to say we have the worst quality of life, just that when we succeed its due to the value we are able to give to the world rather than being propped up by value stolen by others.”

    So there’s your answer you mincing mangina. As far as leaving politics out of the “Manosphere”, fine and dandy, but Rollo might as well change that banner image of a man cutting off the blindfold to one of him gleefully wrapping it back on.

    “Politics is a science. You can demonstrate that you are right and that others are wrong”. Sartre

  • deti

    @ Che:

    “After all, if I’m safe, discreet, don’t shove my wife’s face in it, and continue to “provision” for those things that are clearly most important to my spouse (and where she gets an A) is it really so unethical or immoral to go outside of the marriage to get the one thing she doesn’t provide?”

    Yes. If it’s that bad, end the marriage.

    “If the rules are that I’m no longer entitled to sex with my wife in exchange for provisioning, fine…. I’m still prepared to meet her more than halfway: I’ll continue to provision, but will take care of my sexual needs elsewhere. And I’ll do so without any guilt.”

    Don’t. Get a good lawyer, work out the best deal you can, see if you can get the children, do the best you can to minimize your financial obligations to her, and divorce her. If she asks why, be honest. “Because you obviously don’t want to have sex with me. No sex, no marriage. Sex is the only real, tangible benefit I get from marriage.”

    Here’s something you need to consider: If you’re that much more attractive now, surely your wife sees that, especially if she’s smart enough to get an “A” in everything but sex. If she sees you’re more attractive, she ought to be ramping it up in the sex department with you.

    Yeah, AAAAAF where she gets an “A” in everything but an “F” in sex, isn’t acceptable. But is AAAAB acceptable? Or AAAAC?

    Think about it.

  • jf12

    @deti, yes but “she ought” has no bearing on a woman’s behaviors.

  • Zorro

    I believe main stream media is the problem with owed sex. How many movies and mostly tv shows depict owed sex as funny. Female characters condition male characters through sex. If you comply, and do what I want, you get sex tonight, and the laugh track plays. “Girls” see this everyday and espire to become that hardcore female character. Thinking, wow, she gets exactly what she wants through sex, and she has the power to use it how ever she wants. Males (Beta) believe this is how it must be, if I do good, I get sex! It’s a joke used on every popular tv show. Now, a male with clear psychological disorders does this terrible thing to a woman, in which he had no right doing. But feminist love it and run with it. “All men think they are owed sex!” “They are such animals!” “How can they think that way!” Owed sex in any relationship is a terrible idea, and an even more unhealthy idea for young girls to strive towards. You want to be a feminist, fine. Just be smart about it and not classify all men through the acts of one. Owed sex is funny remember! (Insert laugh track)

  • jf12

    This is vaguely related.

    http://www.wyldfireapp.com/#intro

    The new dating app, designed by women, only permits preselected men to be in the dating pool.

  • Fred Flange, S.J.

    Agree with Deti on how to deal with the friendzoning wife. Often this disillusion can be reversed – that’s what MMSL is all about – but in those sad instances where the wife has put you in a permanent friendzone then it ends there; no point in banging your head on the wall hoping it falls down.

    Big disagree with Martel and jf12. Insisting that politics inform all sphere discussions is absolutely the same thing as “the personal is political.” It is the road to forced orthodoxy, victim puking, shaming tactics, and shooting in the back the very people you claim you are trying to help. Exhibit A: Occupy Wall Street, which disintegrated when “the personal is political” types stared hogging the bullhorn to promote “intersectionality.”

    As I’ve said before, follow the admonition of the late Lenny Bruce: “There is only what IS. What SHOULD BE is a dirty filthy lie.”

    We are here to describe and discern what IS. I have many many philosophical disagreements with Charles Murray, but I accept his report of what IS going on in the disintegrating middle class, as I accepted the reports of David Blankenhorn and David Popenoe on what IS happening to the cultural attitudes towards fatherhood. Now some disciplines invite political infections and filtering is needed to keep the discipline away from the politics. “Attachment psychology” and “cultural” psychology, though vaild approaches (like wave vs. particle theories of light), can tend to be infected by leftist politics, as “evolutionary psychology” can be infected by the right (unless you’re Churchian and can’t stomach evolution).

    The politics can only follow after you know what IS.

  • Zorro

    Let me add to that… Nobody male or female is owed sex. Even through marriage. If you’re an Alpha, she will want to have sex with you. For the majority unhappy married man posting here… Stop being lazy, and pick up your game! Just as much as you want to tag that smoking hot woman at the office, I’m sure she wants to do the same at hers with that alpha.

  • bbb

    @Che: I completely understand and agree with your thinking. However, there is the second way, the way that saved my marriage (so far).

    When my wife started getting fat, she would model it to me in the mirror, asking me the classic “DTPMMLF”. Later, when menopause hit, she announced that her libido was gone and that she intended to shear her hair into something “more practical”. At Lens Crafters, she loudly asked me what my opinion was of the glasses she picked out for herself. And more.

    Fortunately, but unknowingly, I had been preparing for years for these moments. By watching what I ate, by cycling and running, I kept my BMI at less than 22. I used my weight machine daily. At 45 I had gotten my crooked teeth fixed and my myopic eyes lasered. I kept myself well groomed and dressed in a clean-cut manner that fit my personality. I was as good as I was gonna be.

    I made it plain that fat was unacceptable. Although I couched it in terms of her health, I made it quite plain that I didn’t deserve and wouldn’t accept her getting fat. The libido thing was nipped in the bud when I told her that she was simply going to have to figure out that for herself – not my problem. I told her that her hair was the best part of her and its loss would make her unattractive to me and that the glasses will be appropriate for the convent she would join when I was gone. So no bull shit.

    Risky? Absolutely. While she researched the process of getting a divorce, I asked if I could help her fill in the paperwork.

    Well, marriage saved. She joined a Pilates class and went on a low carb diet, shedding 15 lbs to a BMI of 19. She bought a new wardrobe that complemented the figure she now has and had when we were married 36 years ago. She initiates sex regularly now and whether that’s because of HRT or an reawakened interest in me – I don’t give a shit. Her hair is still longish and she bought more stylish glasses.

    HOWEVER. I believe that the reason she came around was that she came to realize that it would be extremely easy for me to hook up outside the marriage. And that would drive her crazy. I let her know that I would hit the ground running and not look back for an instant if she dumped me.

    Che. Before you step out of your marriage, whip yourself into the best shape you can and run soft dread. Soft dread works. Covertly encourage other women to flirt and attempt eye contact. While cruising past the restaurant bar, let the sluts look you over and tell your wife that you noticed some of the guys checking HER out. This makes sure she sees what YOU want her to see. Give her the impression that this happens all the time and you are soooo bored with it. Keep the threat indirect. Soft dread.

  • Jeremy

    Re the Che/Deti conversation…

    A lot of women in the developed world, the U.S. especially, regard marriage as effectively winning the lottery. They’ve all been taught (either directly with single-parent homes, or through the media) that once children are involved, no man can refuse provisioning under any circumstances. This is why, as soon as kids enter the picture, so many women completely abandon any pretense of attempting to earn provisioning by building attraction with their man. They’ve “won”, it is “game over”, and they know it. The full force of the law is on the side of women if it ever came down to a dispute over marital obligations. The very fact that “marital rape” is even defined in law in our society while “marital theft” or even “divorce theft” is not should tell you this. The sexual needs of the man are literally dirt under the feet of the family. All that matters is keeping the dollars flowing, to the kids, the woman, and the state.

    Either game your woman from the beginning, and never waver in your frame, as some manosphere bloggers seem to have done effectively, or let the women of the developed world marry their dolphins for the “sensual” needs.

  • Zorro

    Hell yeah bbb!

  • LiveFearless

    @Zorro Great points but please don’t try using the truth about our industry out here on men that are addicted to their watching team sports, their scripted ‘news’ sources they believe to be real, their games… Please don’t try to convince them that women want sex (just, not with them)… They’re unable to realize that in 2012, almost 200 million units of the ‘Fifty Shades’ trilogy were sold to, then quickly devoured by (not men) women.

    Do they know the content of the stuff she reads, hears, sees? Clearly, the answer would be No.

    It’s easier for them to believe they’re the intelligencia in following lame political puppetry, getting consumed by supposedly opposing sides we created for them to waste their lives focuses on.

    It’s easier for them to think about their sports team(s) … To cheer in front of a screen without realizing that they’re watching a scripted drama.

    If you make them aware of the truth of why things are as they are, they might learn why the concept of ‘owed sex’ is ridiculous to us. Any man that can walk that can still use his brain can focus on improving himself instead of letting his mind and body be controlled by the 24/7 feed of nonsense.

  • Jeremy

    @bbb

    he initiates sex regularly now and whether that’s because of HRT or an reawakened interest in me – I don’t give a shit.

    People (in general, but especially women), become more sexually active when they exercise regularly. Your body is not designed to be an inactive lump of carbohydrate processing, it’s designed to be used. When it isn’t used, the first thing that starts shutting down is the most basic and plentiful feature of the body, the mitochondrion in your cells. This means that your energy levels subside so that cellular tissue does not have to deal with the unpleasantness of excess chemical energy. This will quickly turn you into a couch potato as your body responds to inactivity with less energy generation, making you more tired and thus less likely to seek activities that would stress yourself. When you reverse this cycle (which is always painful), after a few weeks you will find yourself with excess energy. Well, the first thing that any body will dump excess energy into, is procreation.

    I would wager the increase sex is mostly a result of getting your woman to realize that yes, she was turning into a whale and she’d better get off her ass and do something about it.

  • deti

    Cosign Jeremy’s comment. That’s pretty much how it works. I’m convinced the main reason a lot of men are staying in their crappy marriages is for their kids, and because they know they won’t see them again. It’s a myth that men don’t love their kids; that moms love their kids and care about their kids more than dads do. Why the fuck do women think men get their asses out of bed and go to soul-sucking jobs?

    Che: Bottom line is this. If you’re at your best, you’re running some soft dread, and you’re making it pretty clear that it’s sex or we’re done, and she’s still not responding, you might as well pull the plug, because it’s only a matter of time before she does. And regardless of who files for divorce, the results will be pretty much the same: divide the property 50/50, hopefully you’ll sell the house and divvy up the proceeds, she’ll get the kids, you’ll see them every other week; you’ll be on the hook for hefty child support payments.

    bbb has the right idea. In his case, it turned his marriage around. In some cases, it doesn’t work.

    But if you start mentioning divorce, and she says “OK, let’s divorce”, you need to be prepared to walk that all the way out. In my case, I was.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,714 other followers

%d bloggers like this: