Balancing Act

balancing-life

Donal Graeme had some very relevant ‘musings’ about last week’s post that summed things up and provides me with a great prelude into this week’s post. I hadn’t intended these last couple of posts (and now this one) to become another series (again). I suppose they are now, but I don’t think I’ve quite hit this from all angles just yet. In the interests of full disclosure I should point out that these last three posts were inspired by the first section of the Preventive Medicine book I’m presently working on so it helps organize my thoughts.

From Donal Graeme’s Removing the Mask:

Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

This may seem optimistic coming from me, but I think it will be ‘educated’ men who are the 3rd rail in this equation.

Men at the top end of the SMV curve will always be the commodity over which women will feel entitled to. Feminine hypergamy does not seek its own level, it looks for a better-than-market optimization. Thus the ideal ‘balance’ is one where there is a greater than 1-2 SMV degree difference between that of a man and the women he spins as plates or considers to become intimate with in the long term.

The Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies
For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.

One of the greatest misdirections of gender understanding over the past 60 years has been the idea that both men and women should share the same sexual strategy. A naive equalitarian ideology dictates the need for both genders to have equally similar, cooperative gender life goals, and equally similar methods to realize them. But as with most feminine-primary social engineering, Mother Nature and men and women’s biological imperatives are always at odds with this.

Generally this assimilation of a commonized sexual strategy is ingrained early on in men’s feminization conditioning. I use the term ‘assimilation’ because men are taught and conditioned to presume that the feminine sexual strategy (however most women subjectively choose to define it) is universally the correct strategy – and any deviation from what ultimately serves feminine hypergamy is met with ridicule at best, accusations of misogyny and ostracization at worst.

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

Roissy dropped this maxim years ago, but in its simplicity it defines the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies as they apply to a post-sexual revolution, feminine-primary society. Remove all constraints on hypergamy, maximally forcing men to compromise or abandon the male sexual strategy.

As I outlined in the last post, feminine hypergamy essentially revolves around optimizing (and maximally protracting) women’s unilateral sexual selection from Good Genes men and Good Dad’s men. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

From a biological perspective men’s sexual imperative is one of unlimited access to unlimited sexual availability. This isn’t to discount the very strong impulse in men to seek assurances of paternity in the children they ultimately sire, however, prior to his parental investment, the male impetus is to seek unlimited access to unlimited sexuality.

When we consider a male sexual imperative in the biological respect, and the strategies men use to effect it, it becomes easier to understand the social conventions and engineering the Feminine Imperative uses to control and maximally restrict men as sexual selectors.

Widespread ubiquitous pornography and then the social pathologizing of the male sexual response (while empowering and encouraging the female sexual response) are two very easy observations of this control. However, when we consider paternity laws, legal bans on genetic paternity testing, outlawing testosterone while making female hormones readily available and many other legal and social trends that restrict the male control not just of women’s hypergamous priority, but any degree of a man’s shadow of his own sexual strategy’s control, Roissy’s maxim becomes all the more clear.

Is Game Adversarial?

Almost three years ago I considered this question in a post. My critic at the time posed this to me:

“My biggest problem with the Ro writers is that Game is by definition adversarial. It’s us against them, don’t let the bitch win. That is most definitely Rollo’s approach, yet he commands respect from men here. I can only assume that good men read a lot of Roissy, Roosh or Rollo, incorporate some small fraction of it, and use it to improve their relationships, rather than for nefarious means.”

It took time for me to come into an understanding of the real nature of this distortion concern until May’s tragic events and the deliberate misdirections that followed it in the media and the blogosphere proper.

Game is adversarial because it has to be. I’ve gone on record stating that Game is the logical response to the changes feminism has wrought in society and gender relations over the course of the last 60 or so years, but it’s really more than that.

Game is a threat to feminine-primacy because it returns a degree of control of sexual strategy prioritization back into the hands of men. Game challenges that maximal restriction of male sexuality and leverages (however marginally) some of women’s hypergamous choice to his own purpose.

The Feminine Imperative hates Game because it’s an effective tool against its control – so anyone steeped in the conditioning of the imperative will naturally perceive that challenge as being adversarial. You’ll notice this (female) critic’s first concern was to presume men would use Game and a red pill awareness for ‘nefarious’ ends. This is a prime illustration of that terror of losing hypergamous control.

Tricks and Traps

As I mentioned at the beginning, hypergamy does not seek it’s own level. An ever pragmatic evolution drives hypergamy to seek a better-than-equal pairing. This is the evolutionary jackpot: to combine and send one’s genes into future generations with a (at least perceptually) better than equitable genetic match – and ensure one’s progeny with a better than SMV equitable provisioning.

For all of the handwringing about assortive mating recently, evolution’s capacity to adapt stagnates and stunts under conditions of homogeny. It may occur under less than ideal circumstance from a moral perspective, but assortive mating is regularly thwarted by the (usually hypergamous) drive to mate with a better than equitable sexual market value than the lesser partner.

The problem with the assortive mating equation is that hypergamy has two sides and two (often conflicting) aspects to optimizing it – Good Genes / Good Dad (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks). Assortive mating is not the same order as assortive pairing.

Nature has selected-for women with an instinctual capacity to satisfy and optimize the visceral needs of short-term breeding and optimizing on the genetic aspects of hypergamy. However the better-than-SMV assortive pairing aspect  relies on men adhering to and behaving within defined roles in order to optimize it.

The Feminine Imperative needs honest provider males to behave predictably in order for women to select a better than equitable provider.

The Feminine Imperative demands assurances of both better than equitable breeding and better than equitable provisioning – and it’s got a very brief window of sexual peak SMV competitiveness in which to assure them.

The imperative needs men to fulfill these roles according to calculated and defined sexual stations of each man. So any duplicity or challenge on the part of men to this defined order is a threat to the assurances that women need to optimize hypergamy. Hypergamy’s optimal window of peak SMV for women can’t afford to be tricked into presuming men are anything less or more than their feminine sexual strategies define those men’s roles as.

Hypergamy can’t afford tricks, the ‘tricks’ that Game’s breaking of their sexual strategy’s code represents to women expecting to have their sexual strategy remain unilaterally dominant. As women’s comfort level has increased with the confidence that their strategy will contain that of men’s, they are that much more offended when their strategy is figured out and read back to them by red pill aware men.

It’s an uncomfortable reminder that they’ve traded their believed capacity to intuitively filter for themselves the men who best fill their hypergamous roles; traded that is for the comfort of having men socially controlled to expect to fulfill those roles as a default.

This outrage isn’t just limited to women’s hypergamous ‘exploratory’ years in her SMV peak. Whenever you read an article or hear some 33 year old woman lament the lack of marriageable men of ‘equal’ pairing to themselves (intellectually, professionally or otherwise) know that every cry of ‘Man Up’ is really a frustrated cry over men not playing by the conditioning the Feminine Imperative assured them men would play by, before or once they got to the point of losing the capacity to attract those men.

That’s the trap.

 


167 responses to “Balancing Act

  • Acksiom

    And Vasalgel will effectively be the industrial automation of Game for the masses.

  • TC

    Women thinking they can openly flaunt the AF/BB strategy is similar to their belief that copying overconfident cad behavior will be equally attractive. It will blow up in their faces. Going forward they will have more competition in the form of global travel, pornography, sex bots, etc. Things are going to get much tougher for them.

  • Acksiom

    “Game is a threat to feminine-primacy because it returns a degree of control of sexual strategy prioritization back into the hands of men. Game challenges that maximal restriction of male sexuality and leverages (however marginally) some of women’s hypergamous choice to his own purpose.

    The Feminine Imperative hates Game because it’s an effective tool against its control – so anyone steeped in the conditioning of the imperative will naturally perceive that challenge as being adversarial. You’ll notice this (female) critic’s first concern was to presume men would use Game and a red pill awareness for ‘nefarious’ ends. This is a prime illustration of that terror of losing hypergamous control.”

    Just as the full Community Imperative, of which the FI is merely a part, will hate Vasalgel because of its effectiveness against the CI’s control.

    Why do men discriminate against not only other men, but even *boys*, in women’s favor? Because of the Community Imperative.

    There is a Male Imperative too, not because of ‘balance’ but because men and women are different. The Community Imperative is to maintain the population replacement rate. The Female Imperative is merely an aspect of that.

  • Badpainter

    Widespread use of Vasagel is just as likely to result in the Betas not breeding at all. Considering the direction of child support law it’s a short trip from here to the mother being able to designate any particular man she’s slept with as liable for support. So the loser alpha with no money gets away with reckless breeding, responsible beta gets the bill.

    Vasagel is impotent in the face of the new DNA/paternity testing paradigm.

  • LiveFearless

    It’s an easy balance when it is assumed that the relationships of celebrities are somehow PROOF that that it will work out as well or better for her. Her ‘perfect’ man is still out there! Just this week I’ve witnessed someone’s online meltdown after realizing that ‘he’ hasn’t swept her off of her feet yet. She referred, of course, to Patti Stanger (with her younger man on vacation in Hawaii) and Katie Couric (just remarried) as proof that it’s all going to magically work out, she has plenty of time.

  • Siminov

    I love this quote from Dalrock :
    “The shift is women who are in their 20s today. When that cohort reaches their 30s and finds it difficult to marry en masse is when the real gnashing of teeth will start.”

  • water cannon boy

    The nefarious means is the “just get it ” guy that they are worried will spread information to the guy who doesn’t it. It’s the song “ooh la la”. It’s the guy who potentially would’ve been waiting for Sandberg’s homies being filled in on what’s going on, and saying no, I’m better able to enjoy my time now and I won’t be waiting for you.
    Also, saying nefarious reasons is the same old attempt at using a fear of offending women that Esther Vilar talked about. And I’m wondering when signs will start showing up in main stream media that men are saying they don’t give a damn. When more start saying “hell no you don’t deserve chivalry”. And the “where the good men” articles are responded back with “right in front of you”. And yoga pants ceo’s say “I’m not stepping down, because you are stretching the fabric beyond a reasonable limit.”

  • vinay3543

    And the last paragraph says it all… Women who complain of the “Man Up” syndrome are women who wanted the best of both worlds. They thought, in their mid to late 20s, time would always be on their side and that they could afford to manipulate, test and ditch one or two decent and genuine willing male takers. In the midst of all this, they would have often still been playing away with jerks, thugs or social proof men who were far more popular with women.

    But time holds no prisoners in a woman’s world, and as the big 30th birthday (and usually prior to this date) encroaches and passes, a faster decline of physical beauty is the consequence. Suddenly the bad boys are no longer interested, the nice guys (betas) are not so forthcoming, and as for high value men who have it all – why would they pay a price that isn’t worth the respective female self-assessed market price when there are younger and hotter women with lesser hypergamy demands?

    At this time – a woman in her late 20s/early 30s – a man who is willing to take on a woman’s demands will be never more vulnerable to her contrived strategies. Whoops, the contraceptive pill didn’t work. Yet the same contraceptive method worked when she was having fun in her younger days when options were plentiful… Is it any wonder most women are adversarial towards the male pill?

    Below will link a couple more posts to how men need to keep their wits about them during this female phase of life:

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2014/05/womens-forgiving-failed-marriages-and.html

    http://www.vinaywcmd.com/2013/12/here-comes-bride.html

  • Robert What?

    Thanks for the thoughtful article.

    You said “men don’t like being used as a meal ticket and sperm donor.”

    Men in the West have *always* been used this way, and at least subconsciously, they know it.

    The thing is, society used to grant men certain benefits in recognition of their great sacrifice in slaving to support others besides just himself: a certain amount of respect and deference, recognized as head of the household, even custody of children in the event of a divorce.

    The difference today is, while men are still expected to be the meal ticket and sperm donor, the benefits and perks to them are all gone with the wind.

    Respect and deference? Just look at how fathers are portrayed on TV today vs the 1950s and 60s.

    Recognized head of household? Don’t make me laugh.

    Custody of the children in the event of her divorcing him? He’s lucky if he gets to see his kids at all subject solely to his ex’s good graces. He still is obligated to be the meal ticket, though.

    Whether and how long this can keep going is anyone’s guess. It depends on men continuing to believe they are still living in the 1950s while everyone else knows its the new millennium.

    And it affects more than just women’s mating prospects. The entire system is kept running by men producing more than they need for themselves (Net Producer). Once enough men learn that being a Net Producer has no benefits for them, well then that’s when the whole thing comes crashing down.

  • Philalethes

    Excellent article, as usual. Every man should read this.

    For one sex’s sexual strategy to become realized, the other sex’s strategy must be compromised or abandoned entirely.

    Precisely. The idea of “equal partnership” is a myth, one of the major weapons of the Female Imperative in its modern incarnation. Everything in Nature is hierarchical; in any relationship there will be a higher and a lower, a winner and a loser if we must be frank about it. The only question is, which will you be? Who is to be the master of your life?

    As the old aphorism puts it, “All’s fair in love and war.” Sex is war. Women know this instinctively. Men do not; as has oft been noted, men are the true romantics. This knowledge, as an antidote to men’s natural romanticism (the “hormonal fog” through which men view women, as Warren Farrell so aptly put it), used to be passed down in men’s societies from generation to generation. It is not an accident that one of the major goals of feminism has been to eradicate male-only spaces and relationships—excepting, of course, homosexuality, which, appearances notwithstanding, serves the Female Imperative.

    Anybody who says the FI ultimately makes sense is kidding you. That’s why women need men—fully developed, self-mastered, adult males—because on their own they simply don’t know what’s best for them. They can only act out their impulses, down the path of endless desire whose ultimate end is disaster. (Young males need adult males also, to teach them how to be men. A culture such as our own which no longer has any mechanism to develop such adult males—other than military basic training, which produces a twisted, crippled version—is in serious trouble.) Of course women will fight against being mastered; but if they win, they lose. It’s called co-evolution; the wolf and the deer each make the other stronger.

    In the game of sex, males may hold some of the cards (perhaps even half, sometimes), but females own the deck. As Camille Paglia makes clear in the excellent essay in her book Vamps and Tramps, there is No Law in the Arena. Any man who enters the fray without thoroughly absorbing this knowledge will simply be prey.

    That’s the trap. It certainly is.

  • water cannon boy

    Got a conspiracy theory for you.
    Research and development is progressing promisingly with Vasalgel.
    Alarm is sounded. Prior to the time the product is able to be brought to market, the push for banning paternity tests is started.
    In the future, woman gets pregnant. Claims she’s only been with this one guy recently, so he’s the father. You’ll have to pay support.
    Man says it can’t be me, I use Vasalgel. You’ve been with someone else that I didn’t know.
    Woman says even Vasalgel isn’t 100%. It’s you.
    Man says, then we’ll do a paternity test.
    Courts say nope, they’ve been banned. Pay up.
    Conspiracy creators say our plan worked.

  • jf12

    re: nefarious. In context it merely means *hazardous* to women’s control. Women are that solipsistic that they believe any danger to the FI is inherently eevil.

    I’m collecting dangerous-sounding, retribution-sounding words suitable for blackknight gamertags, without definite connotation of eevil. So, Nefarious Deed is out, but Hazard Signal would be ok albeit cheesy. Present Danger is better.

    Here’s where I’m at, as of last night: balancing Eccl 7:16 “Be not righteous overmuch” and 7:17 “Be not overmuch wicked”.

  • Tilikum

    “Feminine Imperative assured them men would play by”

    women lie…..and most of all to themselves

  • Jeremy

    @Acksiom

    June 25th, 2014 at 1:57 am
    And Vasalgel will effectively be the industrial automation of Game for the masses.

    Explain yourself. I see you here (and in the last threat) claiming that the social reprogramming that the manosphere purports to teach is replaceable with medical technology. I’d like to understand the miracle drug.

  • Retrenched

    Home run. You’ve really been on a roll lately.

    So when’s the next book coming out?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    No promises (like last time) but I’m shooting for October.

  • thegreatshebang

    In just a few minutes of conversation it is clear that the most blatant women who expect financial support and a wedding aren’t worth spending time to even talk to. I just laugh at their tragic lives with no self-knowledge and walk away.

  • water cannon boy

    You want to book to coincide with Halloween?

  • anunymooz

    First I’m hearing about a trend toward preventing paternity testing, can someone point us all to some data on this?

  • water cannon boy

    want the book
    Crap, deliver is everything when it comes to telling jokes.

    Anuny, you can google “countries banning paternity testing”

  • Mark

    Great post Rollo. Your writings continue to remind me to keep my eyes and ears open, especially around women form the 28-33 age range. It’s really fascinating to see them react to male unpredictability. They assume we’ll fall in line with their frame and when we go off script, they loose it. Shaming techniques, crying jags, withholding sex, etc…I’ve seen it all. It makes so much more sense with the knowledge of your SMV graph. Keep the hits coming! I recommend your book to all guys I know.

  • spicoli

    I miss Mark Minter’s comments. Anybody seen him post lately somewhere? Thanks for the great post again Rollo.

  • Jeremy

    Mark’s posted in just about the last 4 threads, usually quite long posts and then he’s gone.

  • D-Man

    “that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”

    “The shift is women who are in their 20s today. When that cohort reaches their 30s and finds it difficult to marry en masse is when the real gnashing of teeth will start.”

    I will be very curious to see whether the predicted ballooning demographic of disenfranchised women will be capable of showing the same courage, unflinching self-reflection, and solidarity we see here in the sphere.

    Will they face painful truths and deconstruct them?

    Will they help one another focus on inner game?

  • Jeremy

    @D-Man

    The problem with disenfranchised women is that they’re usually post-wall, and thus any bitterness they develop does not have the same cure that younger, disenfranchised men have. Men who feel this way are usually late-20s to even early 40s. For these men, as long as you can convince them that their best years are just ahead, you can convince them to get back on the horse and improve themselves. For post-wall spinsters, it is many times like throwing lipstick on a rapidly aging pig. They’ve never had to do the hard work to improve themselves like men have, they’ve gone decades while being gifted attention from the opposite sex, and they’ve just had their favorite toys taken away. Worse, they feel like they’re in total competition with the younger girls, bloodthirsty competition…

    How do you convince that batch of women to tell the younger women to marry young and put effort holding a family together? It’s like asking the Israeli’s to make nice and courteously teach all the Arab nations how to build a nuclear bomb.

  • walawala

    “”As women’s comfort level has increased with the confidence that their strategy will contain that of men’s, they are that much more offended when their strategy is figured out and read back to them by red pill aware men.””

    Great post. I’ve seen this so often where beta orbiter “appears” to be doing great with girls because he’s surrounded by them. But when you probe a bit more, he’s paying for their drinks, or dinners or driving them around. It’s not clear whether he’s banging them or they’re just “friends”…more likely “Friends”.

    I used to be envious of this type of guy wondering why can’t i get more girls to surround me…i can. Girls like this surround guys like that because they’re usually providers. That’s why they don’t mind having other girls around because they’re not personally invested. All the girls I banged became very attached very quickly and did NOT want other women around me.

    The idea now that women have become so “empowered” that the shame they TRY to invoke in men who hit on them is really a control technique and that when they do get gamed successfully the surprise they later feel can turn into anger but rarely indifference.

  • jf12

    This seems relevant.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/484719/Is-Gwyneth-Paltrow-having-second-thoughts-about-love-split-with-Chris-Martin

    Despite Paltrow allowing him an open marriage, her increasing shrewness and control issues and obsession with getting old pushed Martin away a long time ago. Their “Conscious Uncoupling” news bulletin was a result of months of preparations by her with her press agents. But she has so far failed to ignite *any* other man’s interest, despite desperately attending soirees to try to hookup with rich producers etc. She has found the SMP for a divorced mother in her 40s to be extremely problematic, even for a rich famous woman.

  • Jeremy

    Sounds like Martin brought home the hard dread.

  • D-Man

    I agree Jeremy, I guess asked those questions quasi-rhetorically.

    Still, if they have the stomach for it, these bitter women could find many a truth already laid out for them in places like this.

    They might realize how they, too, have been lied to.

    My prediction: a few might. Most will bleat

  • Nathan

    In 20 years, women are in for a rude awakening.

  • Jeremy

    I agree D-Man, which is why I wholeheartedly agree with Roosh, Rollo, and others when they say that bitterness against feminism/women is something the manosphere should ultimately avoid. We should tolerate it, because frankly it’s a valid emotion when recognizing that you were lied to by people who cared about you.

    But it should be avoided in the blogging because we (as men) are in the position *TO* avoid it. Women who are finally hit in the face with the lies will have no option but bleating and neverending anger at having the rug pulled from underneath them by biology. In the to-this-point fictitious reckoning that may be coming between the sexes in the developed world, it is the men who are in the position to provide a constructive direction for society to go. The women with a voice will turn to destructive ends, quite quickly.

  • M Simon

    “Where have all the good men…” is not a new lament. I have been hearing it for 50 years. Some women have always been under the impression that they have forever.

  • Acksiom

    Ask me respectfully.

  • donalgraeme

    I don’t have time for anything more than a short comment right now. I wanted to address something Robert mentioned-

    You said “men don’t like being used as a meal ticket and sperm donor.”

    Men in the West have *always* been used this way, and at least subconsciously, they know it.

    The thing is, society used to grant men certain benefits in recognition of their great sacrifice in slaving to support others besides just himself: a certain amount of respect and deference, recognized as head of the household, even custody of children in the event of a divorce.

    The difference today is, while men are still expected to be the meal ticket and sperm donor, the benefits and perks to them are all gone with the wind.

    Robert is exactly right, and gets to one of the most important facts about the present environment. Much of what is driving the male response to the present SMP right now is the degradation in the quality of the Western woman.

    You see, there is a difference between being “used”, and being used,. Men are ok with being “used” if they get something out of it- if they think that there is some kind of equitable exchange at place. The problem is that men are being used right now- the exchange is anything but equitable.

    The [ugly?] truth is that many men wouldn’t mind the AF/BB or GG/GD paradigm so much if the quality of woman they could snag as a BB/GD was higher. A lot of “Betas” would be more than glad to get sloppy seconds if they ended up marrying a sweet, submissive and sexy woman… even if she was on the downhill side of the SMV curve. But right now that isn’t what men are getting.

    Sweet? Try bitchy.

    Submissive? How about rebellious?

    Sexy? Try landwhale.

    Ultimately, I think this phenomenon, the degradation of the Western Female,is even more important than the new brazenness displayed by those same women.

  • Jeremy

    @Acksiom

    June 25th, 2014 at 1:48 pm
    Ask me respectfully.

    Please stop being a little bitch.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I’m gonna drop this here because I think it’s going to be relevant to the discussions this thread will prompt at some point:

    http://www.rooshv.com/the-wall-is-softer-than-we-think

    I may actually do a response post to this, but I have to admit I do see where Roosh is coming from here. My criticisms would be that while women will always have a degree of sexual selectivity, there’s a difference in whom they’re able to select at 25 as opposed to 35.

    When you consider the 20% to 80% ratio of Alpha to Beta men, I’d agree that (considering a woman makes an effort) there will always be Betas grateful to get at a past-due spinster.

    However, what I think Roosh isn’t considering is the Alpha Widow factor. 5 minutes of Alpha at 25 still trumps 5 years of grateful Beta at 35.

    I think it’s a bit ego-preserving for guys to believe the Wall will be the great equalizer for women’s sexual strategies, but this discounts men’s increasing awareness (courtesy of women’s comfort with open hypergamy no less) of how that strategy works.

    Consider the guy in this article:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax/2014/04/18/898e82ce-b9bb-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

    or the husband in Saving the Best:

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/

    There is a male downside to Betas ‘salvaging’ post-Wall spinsters.

  • Rob Lee

    Even if they’re outlawed by the feminist imperative, ‘home’ or self-paternity tests are getting cheaper and easier to use. My older brother works in this field, and his red-pill-based commentary is interesting (he’s not the usual panty-waist scientist): “The use of the test should be explained to women by the concerned male as a screen for manifest genetic deficiencies. What woman doesn’t want her little snowflake to be perfect.”

    Bam; ‘kid is or ain’t mine.’

  • jacklabear

    Is the constantly increasing enabling of false sexual assault claims and pushing back of due process in defense of those false claims, an anti-alpha, anti-game strategy?
    What is going to happen when even the PUAs, jocks and CEOs become afraid of trying to get laid despite women throwing themselves at them?

  • Ras Al Ghul

    The real reason they want to ban paternity tests is because the doctors KNOW the cuckold rate is way higher that 1-3% (which is still bad.

    Its closer to 1 in 3. And yes it is better for the mother and child for it not to be known, because the cuckolded fathers would rebel and some would engage in violence.

    Anyone that wants to keep a dad in the dark is the moral equivalent of an accessory to rape.

    What amazes me is people even in the sphere don’t recognize that the interests of men and women are inherently adversarial.

    Part of it is biology, men are disposed for the survival of the species to put women’s interests first.

    Social Security is a huge resource allocation from men to women, that is inherently adversarial.

    VAWA, WIC, the welfare state are all adversarial to men. Human resources, sexual harassment, all adversarial to men.

    The marriage laws currently, all adversarial to men

    Abortion adversarial (the only reason some cads like it is because of another adversarial law: child support).

    The game is absolutely rigged and there is one group that wins: women and one that loses: men.

  • Ras Al Ghul

    @Jacklabear

    “Is the constantly increasing enabling of false sexual assault claims and pushing back of due process in defense of those false claims, an anti-alpha, anti-game strategy?
    What is going to happen when even the PUAs, jocks and CEOs become afraid of trying to get laid despite women throwing themselves at them?”

    This is just one more fitness test, one more way to weed out alphas and beta. It is also an attempt to corral the alphas.

    An alpha would be undeterred, it makes the beta timid. Screening process enabled.

    Second, the women think it will give them control over the alphas: if you spurn me, I will destroy you.

    Third, women just like to destroy people, they like anything that gives them power, and behave as a child would with power: vengeful, spiteful, capricious, selfish.

    There’s a reason the old religions valued female witnesses less than men (often requiring four women to overcome one man). See Salem witch trials, the list goes on . . .

  • Steve H

    Rollo @ 2:02 – if there’s any sentiment among red-pill shut-ins that they’re going to magically receive the benefits of post-wall realities – relative to women their age – as they get older, they are sorely mistaken.

    As a man, you’re not going to see any evident discrepancy in a woman’s ‘choice privilege’ unless you yourself have some degree of ‘choice’ in women yourself. You have to create the abundance of opportunity so that you’ll have a tangible, real world reference point as to how the quality and quantity of men a post-wall woman can attract truly does diminish with time.

    You can’t just rest on your laurels and expect that ‘those horrid women that treated me like shit are going to get their just comeuppance’. That doesn’t happen in a vaccum. Because almost any non-fat woman is still going to be able to get laid at will as she gets into her late 30s and even her early-mid 40s.

    If you’re a thirsty beta trawling the bars in your thirties or forties, but you have little-to-no social skills and you lack the ability to attract women, even with red-pill knowledge – you are in for a sore spectacle.

    The point here: become of man of abundant social and sexual opportunities, and you will in fact be able to clearly watch certain phenomena unfold as women age: women have fewer men to choose from, women have uglier men to choose from, women have poorer quality men to choose from, women have less alpha men to choose from, and women have virtually no ability whatsoever to keep any Alpha male who does consent to banging her brains out on a drunken Friday night.

    You’ll see it when, and only when, you have abundance.

  • jacklabear

    The alphas may be undeterred, but I notice most of the news of male sexual persecution is towards alpha types.
    Guess who will be filling the sex crime concentration camps?

  • Veritas

    “As I outlined in the last post, feminine hypergamy essentially revolves around optimizing (and maximally protracting) women’s unilateral sexual selection from Good Genes men and Good Dad’s men. Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.”

    I posted a good comment on Roissy’s blog about this, (the Good Genes part) and a couple of hours later, it was completely removed by him. It wasn’t stuck in moderation or anything because other commentors replied to my comment and some agreed with it. I cited a study that showed how women orgasm from men who were symmetrical/good looking. The woman’s orgasms didn’t come from romantic attachment or even sexual skill from both parties, but rather, from the male partners good genes. Apparently this was too much for Roissy to handle so he deleted the comment and banned me from commenting. I’ve seen other commentors mention the importance of good genes and they too have either had their comments stuck in moderation or banned completely (some have mentioned this here). One can only assume Roissy himself doesn’t like truths that don’t pertain to his world view.

    A place where pretty lies perish? Hah, that is to laugh.

    Nonetheless, I always did like your blog Rollo. You tell it like it is and leave no room for lies, even if you may not like them personally. And for that, I’m forever thankful of your involvement in the manosphere.

    All the best to you and your book. I will reserve a copy to support your message.

  • D-Man

    “Anyone that wants to keep a dad in the dark is the moral equivalent of an accessory to rape.”

    100% agree. The stats I’ve read put it in the 5-10% range… but whatever it is, it’s high time for light to shine on it, and public comeuppance for impostors.

    Doesn’t it BLOW YOUR MIND how many families of the past have referred to a totally unexpected conception (Dad was out of town on business while Mom was ovulating, he must have SUPER SPERM that stayed alive for a week!), and the child that resulted from it, as a MIRACLE!??!?!!?

    Quite the fucking opposite Daddy-o! you poor schlub

    The thing with home genetics tests tho, just watch…

    …dollars to donuts…

    …first they’ll try and refute veracity…

    … then they’ll try and make it inadmissible, say you collected the genetic data without the infant’s CONSENT

  • Jeremy

    @D-Man

    June 25th, 2014 at 3:13 pm
    “Anyone that wants to keep a dad in the dark is the moral equivalent of an accessory to rape.”
    100% agree. The stats I’ve read put it in the 5-10% range… but whatever it is, it’s high time for light to shine on it, and public comeuppance for impostors.

    One thing that isn’t considered in the developed world, it gets swept under the rug, is the seemingly random murder-suicides within an immediate family. It is actually far more common than gun-rampages at gun-free-zones. A random family in the U.S., seemingly happy with themselves, kids, job, neighborhood. Suddenly the husband has a gun, shoots his wife, his kids, and then himself. There’s no explanation, no trail remaining, just a family all dead because a man people thought was normal, suddenly snapped. In the real scheme of things, this kind of murder rampage is rare, but it’s certainly more common than school shootings, and it is ever-so-quietly swept under the rug.

    How many of those cases were there paternity tests between the child and father? And what percentage would you suppose would demonstrate that the kid was not his? I’d wager close to 100%.

    Paternity fraud is rape.

  • D-Man

    Speaking of the rape analogy, let’s do a little thought experiment, shall we

    Imagine a survey where you give guys a choice:

    A: One brief humiliating encounter where you are penetrated by another guy. You get to use lube (women’s vaginas lubricate defensively), and you can get blackout drunk beforehand if you like

    B: EIGHTEEN YEARS MINIMUM of raising or supporting some other asshole’s kid, EIGHTEEN YEARS of looking your wife (or ex-wife, doesn’t matter, you’ll still hafta deal with her) in the eye, knowing she fucked this guy in your marital bed, knowing she’s spending your money mostly on herself.

    And if you refuse to, you’ll get thrown in prison where there’s a decent probability of scenario (A) happening anyway, only this time without the lube and booze

    What do you think the breakdown of that survey would be?

  • Jeremy

    @jacklabear

    Is the constantly increasing enabling …an anti-alpha, anti-game strategy?
    What is going to happen when even the PUAs, jocks and CEOs become afraid of trying to get laid despite women throwing themselves at them?

    That’s another interesting line of thought. What I would wager is going to happen (and I think someone else hinted at this already) is that ever-increasing restrictions on male sexuality, combined with ever-more-public displays of AF/BB strategy, will continue to shrink the available pool of alphas willing to take the risks associated with women. As the risks to person/finance/future increase, the number of alphas willing to put themselves at risk will go down. Taken to it’s (obscene) conclusion, the only man left willing to risk themselves for sexual relations would be a world-dictator. He would have all the power, and thus no risk. Essentially the rich will get richer, and the poor/middle class get poorer.

    So as that pool of alphas shrinks (by way of FI advancing itself and manosphere knowledge seeping out) the chance for 5 minutes of alpha starts vanishing for women.

    I guess what happens then is a great whining by women, combined with a significant sociological shift where most of the average women start counting the cost of the cock carouself.

  • D-Man

    @Jeremy, wow I never thought of that. I could easily see that being enough to make some regular guys snap

  • D-Man

    For a REAL eye-opener, give that same survey to women…

    I would wager a HIGHER percentage of them would choose option A over the men, when faced with the thought of paying for some other woman’s kid that their husband fucked.

  • Jeremy

    No doubt. Women often appear as if they do not understand the value of money, as if they’re willing to spend their husband into the poorhouse. But when you ask those same women to accept wage garnishment, or a constant drain on their finances for something outside of their control, they flip out. They clearly understand money just as well as men do, but with the pervasive NPD, many seem to consider the men in their lives to be meal tickets.

  • Jeremy

    @Veritas

    I cited a study that showed how women orgasm from men who were symmetrical/good looking. The woman’s orgasms didn’t come from romantic attachment or even sexual skill from both parties, but rather, from the male partners good genes.

    I believe there are also significant studies that show that the female orgasm does indeed facilitate conception. If so, that would be a confirmation of AF/BB from a biological standpoint.

  • D-

    I know, it’s a sickening thought experiment.

    And here’s the kicker: if you choose option A, *you don’t have to tell anyone about it*

    Of course, women will pipe up and say: “This survey thing is not fair, it’s not the same, rape is when you don’t have a choice, it’s about POWER!”

    To which I say: exactly

  • kfg

    ” . . . for nefarious means.”

    For once I wish my mustache were twirlable.

  • Acksiom

    Jeremy, you first.

  • jf12

    btw the Wall isn’t softer than *I* think (I don’t do Roosh, or Heartiste). The Wall may be a little *thicker* than some people think, but once a woman finds herself on the other side of the Wall, whether that happens at 33 or 38, she’ll definitely feel it was hard.

  • jf12

    @D-man, so you’re saying the only reason so many men find themselves getting something like option B so often is because they aren’t permitted to get option A?

  • D-Man

    LOL, no I’m just saying that many people of both genders would likely consider B to be at least as bad as A, so the comparison of rape to paternity fraud is a valid one.

  • D-Man

    Both violate and leave someone powerless. Awareness of one is a ubiquitous society-wide campaign (not saying it shouldn’t be), but the other is silenced. Mandated away. A wave of the hand.

    Quite a balancing act.

  • Jeremy

    @Acksiom

    June 25th, 2014 at 1:57 am
    And Vasalgel will effectively be the industrial automation of Game for the masses.

    Explain yourself. I see you here (and in the last thread) claiming that the social reprogramming that the manosphere purports to teach is replaceable with medical technology. I’d like to understand the miracle drug.

  • Acksiom

    Jeremy, ask respectfully.

  • M Simon

    A culture such as our own which no longer has any mechanism to develop such adult males—other than military basic training, which produces a twisted, crippled version—is in serious trouble.

    I dunno. There’s motorcycle gangs.

    And “twisted” ?

    “No better friend No worse enemy.” – US Marines

  • Johnycomelately

    Roosh is 100% correct in his analysis, the single most important aspect concerning sexual dynamics that is completely overlooked by the manosphere are demographics and population pyramids.

    Despite all the good evo psycho sexual analysis the numbers are what they are and all the game in the world can’t change the general dynamics.

    Given that men mate down in years, any population growth stagnation or contraction (which is what is happening in the West) simply means there are more men competing for fewer women. It’s that simple, there will be no grand comeuppance.

    (Look at a population pyramid, if the base is bigger that means there are more chicks for men, if the sides are flat or smaller at the base that spells big trouble for men as there are fewer women)

    MGTOW, PUAs, Gamers, Red Pillers and MRAs won’t do squat to affect the general dynamics, if anything some (like MGTOW and Herbivores) are actually a product of the imbalance.

    As long as there are more males than females beta bucks is a winning strategy.

  • George Asare

    There are no such thing as “good”.genes. Wish everybody would stop going on about that.

    Good genes implies that evolution has some sort of direction or purpose, which it does not.

  • Jeremy

    Acksiom won’t defend his claim. I submit he has no backing for his claim.

    Hence, there is no miracle drug for game.

  • M Simon

    George Asare
    June 25th, 2014 at 6:58 pm

    Good genes implies that evolution has some sort of direction or purpose, which it does not.

    But women do have a purpose and a direction. They select for physical strength, brains, inner strength, and bottom of the list – beauty. Generally.

  • deti

    Fromt he last thread, the very best explication I’ve yet seen of the “Lean In”/open nature of AF/BB:

    Courtesy Retrenched at :http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/18/controlling-interests/comment-page-2/#comment-44225

    “It’s just so over the top and in your face, really, this open taunting of beta men. Telling beta men, straight up, ‘We’re going to sleep with guys we think are hotter than you, and then when we’ve decided that we’ve slept with enough of them, we’re going to settle for you. And you will be there, because you have to be, and there’s nothing you can do about it. In fact, we’re so sure that you’ll be there for us, desperately waiting for us to get tired of the guys we think are hotter than you, that we’re just going to come out and tell you that we’re doing this all the while. We’ll give them our best for free, up front, but you on the other hand will have to work for it and wait for it. And you’ll STILL wife us up in the end, even knowing all of this ahead of time. Because, really, what other choice do you have?’”

  • kfg

    “Good genes implies that evolution has some sort of direction or purpose, which it does not.”

    It does, however, have an effect.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @George, C&P’d from the last comment thread:

    Genetic superiority is relative to an organism’s ability to adapt to its environment better than others.

    That said, there are physical and behavioral cues which imply “good genes” which have evolved to be ‘Alpha signaling’ arousal triggers for women.

    A particular man may suffer from latent genetic defects that make him and any offspring less able to adapt, but so long as he is extrinsically arousing for a woman he’ll breed more than men possessing less arousing Alpha cues.

  • Acksiom

    Jeremy won’t ask respectfully. I submit he is not trying to get an explanation.

    Hence, he shall not get any attention.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Johnycomelately, it’s true, you wont change the general dynamic, but you can Game the dynamic, you can work the dynamic to your relative advantage and you can maneuver within the dynamic IF you have a workable, predictable and knowledgable awareness of the mechanics of the dynamic.

    While I agree with Roosh’s assessment about men’s desire to see justice in the Wall (which I personally have more times than not), I don’t think the dynamic is as hopeless and unworkable as he’s presenting it.

  • olympiapress

    “As long as there are more males than females beta bucks is a winning strategy.” — but there aren’t for post-Wall women, especially when you factor in even a smattering of hypergamy. I was talking to a guy last night, he’s three years older than me, (44), went on Plenty of Fish a couple months back, wakes up to several hundred emails a day, even has women sending him naked pics out of the blue. Some of them are apparently not complete landwhales. Joke is, they’re mostly in Sarasota, and he always has to go down there to see them–we’re outside St. Petersburg, so it’s around a 20-mile drive each way, involving bridges and waterways. I said, you know, maybe they don’t have money for the toll, but it’s always sex on the first date so they maybe they figure keep him close.

    /Sarasota is the future of America, at 40+ there are 3x as many single women w/ degrees as men of similar age. Women who’ve kept their looks at that age tend to date men in their late 50s, even early 60s. Women who haven’t kept their looks occasionally hook up with someone really drunk.

  • Ryn

    I believe that young girls around the age of 14/15 should be taught a class in school about the fact that as females they only have 10 prime years (18-28) to attract the best mate possible and to use that time wisely when they leave school and go out into the world, or they’ll end up like the cast of Sex and the City.

  • water cannon boy

    How long ago was that People Magazine cover for Gwyneth Paltrow?

  • jacklabear

    @ Johntcomelately

    I followed your argument up until “As long as there are more males than females beta bucks is a winning strategy.”

    A winning strategy for who, men or women? And why?

  • RasAlGhul

    “As long as there are more males than females beta bucks is a winning strategy.”

    There is an event horizon at some point. The marriage rate is still dropping like a stone. The ultimate provider government is going to fail eventually, and the more single moms out their raising kids, the more dysfunctional the men and women getting raised. Every society that engages in our current form of lunacy passes that horizon eventually and gets destroyed.

    There was recently an article Roissy had up showing that being a criminal is more “reproductively fit” then not (a better word then good genes, and the person that thinks women select for anything other than thuggery is mistaken. Men select for beauty, and physical fitness, women do not). However, if that was indeed the best strategy for passing on your genes, all men would do it, which they don’t.

    It is however, a successful strategy as long as there are only so many men doing it, there is a equilibrium of sorts

    Think of it as predator and prey. Too many predators eat all the prey and starve and turn on themselves, which allows the prey population to grow, once the prey population gets to populous, the predators grow.

    Once a society gets enough surplus wealth, the thug population grows. To many thugs eatting up the resources and the productive members of society cannot produce enough and society collapses, clearing out a lot of the thugs (and productive members too), allowing the productive members to grow, around and around the cycle goes.

    Once the civil war hits the west, and make no mistake its coming in one form or another soon, there will be a lot less men.

  • jf12

    re: “Women who’ve kept their looks at that age [40+] tend to date men in their late 50s, even early 60s.”

    Ooh, the horror. “Even” mid 60s, just saying.

  • jf12

    @johnnycomelately re: “all the game in the world can’t change the general dynamics.”

    True at a macro level. But what *would* instantly make a huge macro change is a wide distribution of chemicals to enhance female libido.

  • Jeremy

    Generational imbalances in the general population are cyclic and dynamically stable, not unstable. Right now, China is actually hurting worse than anyone, because I believe currently their largest demographic is men between the ages of 15 and 35. But these imbalances only last a generation or so, then it rebounds. The “trend” is exponential then (I believe) logarithmically increasing depending on resources, but definitely cyclic.

    That said, there’s always perturbations to consider, and the sexual revolution and it’s afterbirths are a definite perturbation.

  • Will

    @rollo

    what age did you marry/meet your wife?

    And to keep a high smv girl (or at least one that’s hotter than you) to chase you and keep going to you for sex what is the most important thing to do…? Basically if you were to summarize it up in a sentence or a few words….

  • Mark Minter

    This comment is gonna go around the block to seem relevant to this post but bear with me.

    Consider this song from Talk Talk from The Spirit of Eden album from 1988 called “I Believe In You”.

    Talk Talk was a band from the 80s that had a growing commercial MTV style success with a synth pop style with the first Albums, Talk Talk, It’s My Life, and Colour of Spring. I was among their fans. In 1988 they released this album The Spirit of Eden and it was a radical departure from anything that came before. It pissed of their record company and was not a commercial success at all. The record company demanded something more commercially viable and Mark Hollis, the lead of the band refused. The label released “The Best Of” record and the band sued, and both parted ways. The band put out the record Laughing Stock in 1992, again commercially unsuccessful. The music on the last two albums has been described as “Post-Modern”. Talk Talk disbanded and Mark Hollis had some solo projects then more or less, dropped from public life.

    Fast forward to today and YouTube. Devoted fans began to upload the music and people, both old fans and new ,began to rediscover the band’s music and looking back you can see the important influence in had on many of today’s bands. The most observed influence was on Radiohead. Interesting enough, that with all this renewed interest and calls to Mark Hollis to step back into the limelight, he maintains his integrity and says “No, that was then. I am a husband and a father now and that is my current priority.”

    The interesting thing about this renewed interest is that among both the older fans and the newer, it is the last two albums, one of which contains the song posted above, that receives the most acclaim. It is as if the title of the song “I believe in you” is sort of a message to the fans. Eventually they will come around and appreciate the work. The video itself is completely understated and at the end Mark Hollis has this wry smile.

    And for me, after all that has happened in my life, all the journeys, all the evolution and change in me, and in music, I did come around. I now can truly appreciate the greatness in the song and where Hollis was at, somewhere way ahead of the rest of us. But some of us did catch up. It took 25 fucking years but we did.

    And this is where I veer back in to relevance to the post. I make an analogy to this knowledge here, particularly in this blog and generally, in red pill and the manosphere. It is ahead of its time and not all are going to “get it”.

    In response to a comment about me from above, fuck I miss “me” too. But I took a chance that seemed hypocritical compared to previous writings. It obviously cost my “public” self dearly. But that chance has paid off handsomely in an improvement in my material and emotional well being.

    But more importantly, I have been able to enhance the lives of the people with whom I am involved with, Kate, her daughter, fuck, even the dog. And I continue to maintain that a lot of the reason I thought the risk would pay off, and that I could make this particular relationship work, was due to the metamorphosis in my personality that came about from the teachings I received here and in the other “Ro” blogs.

    In the introduction section of the book, The 48 Laws of Power, the author says while some of recommendations in the book might seem “Machiavellian”, you had a duty to the people to whom you are charged with in their lives to use the content and practices to make their lives better, even though you are manipulative in doing so.

    The same can be said of Red Pill. I do not hesitate to say “Here, have some fucking dread.” It reigns her back in and in a sense, it keeps her happy. It is actually hard to give specific examples of how I use it. It is like knowing physics. You integrate it into your life in a seamless way but you are more effective because you do. You know what to do and what not to do, what to choose and what not to choose, who to choose and who not to choose. It all becomes intuitive.

    Maybe, the sheer rationality of this knowledge will cause the number of men and women that learn and understand it to continue to grow and to be more widespread. Maybe not.

    But what is more important is that you “get it” and you use it to have the power and the will to power to effect not only your life, but also to “trick” the others that life has put in your charge to end up happier and better off.

    And as I said in that long comment about the “History of Rollo” a few posts back, maybe people look back and say “It all started here”. And like the current bunch of Talk Talk fans that have grown enough to finally understand the later work of the band, the rest of the world will say about this particular “Ro” blog …

    “Oh, now I get it.”

  • Mark Minter

    One last comment to all those women who are stressed out because they waited past their viable SMV, Game is the new “disruptive technology” to the old mating game, men aren’t manning up to marry 30+ carousel riders, and the pool seems small to them then there is always Pinterest because …

    STRESSED spelled backwards is “DESSERTS”

  • orion

    What I do not quite get is the histrionics about Vasalgel.

    Sure, they might not let you DNA test the child, alright.

    So, you present your spermiogram after the procedure and your current one that you had done for this very special occasion and your sperm count should be zero.

    So, whoever fathered the child, it definitely was not you.

  • kfg

    “Once the civil war hits the west, and make no mistake its coming in one form or another soon, there will be a lot less men.”

    It’s not going to be particularly easy on Entitlement Princesses either.

  • Glenn

    @ donalgraeme – Great observation. The former beta deal was not so bad. In exchange for okay sex, given begrudgingly at times, the man provided and protected and was respected for doing so. Today? It’s rare.

    There are two important things I want to point out here.

    1. It’s not just female sexual strategies that have changed, it’s the entire organization of the family. Today, I rarely see a man operating as the “head of household” – even if he is paying all the bills. Women are constantly being aggressive, dominant and most become adamantly hostile to male dominance. In other words – there is no there there for men any more in a family. The entire family system is designed to empower and worship women at the expense of boys, men, husbands and sons. I see it in my alpha bitch sister’s family, her 4 year old son is shamed for being a boy, and the dad and his 8 yr old sister pile on. So, for the most part, men will not get any reward for sacrifices they make for family in any circumstances.

    2. Betas are the culprits. Beta’s think their ‘nice guy’ strategy is morally superior to “game”. Betas have internalized the FI so completely that they enforce it’s values on non-beta men now in every context in society. I went to the article on the paternity testing and found one man commenting that “women should be able to choose the father of their child” – meaning that genetics should not be the decisive factor. This is a MAN (supposedly) saying this. Betas think they are better people than alpha guys who are “assholes”.

    I had a friend in town for an overnight who has taken the Red Pill but has twisted it around as many betas do to justify his approach to life as superior to an alpha strategy. His solution is to use prostitutes and I tried to explain to him how this is the ultimate beta strategy as it’s defacto “negotiated desire” which can’t be negotiated. He claims “I don’t really care about any of that alpha/beta stuff” and that his approach is great for him, that he’s not settling and miserable.

    After hours of pulling apart his denial and bullshit, he realized he’d been kidding himself about how this “worked” for him. Underneath it all was this uber Beta who was so sick of being ignored by women – he also has a schizophrenic mom and an absent Dad – that this was his revenge against women and alphas, in his mind. And even with the hookers he took great pride in the fact that he makes them come, which I laughed at. I asked him why on earth he would want to please someone he was paying to please him? To me, the best thing about commercial sex (something that men should be very careful to not become dependent on as it is defacto beta) is that it’s all about me. I get to be selfish and really just get what I want the way I want it and not worry about satisfying the woman.

    His formula? By making them come he was separating himself from the other customers and could claim there was actual desire for him. But after a while of pulling this apart he saw how most were faking the orgasms and that even if he did make some of them come sometimes, that didn’t change the dynamics at all. What was shocking to me is how deep his denial and rationalizations and self-deceptions ran. He was literally saying things that were obviously false on their face, but he’d told himself such things for so long that he internalized them.

    I pulled up your SMV graph (he’s been to your site but like many betas, the information is so threatening to everything he’s held dear that he hasn’t really internalized a bit of it) and showed him what a betas life looked like. Rejection and shame and denigration by men and women while young and if you are lucky, some “Strong Independent Woman™” will marry the beta and treat him like an unworthy man for the rest of his life and after children are born, this prize that he’s been waiting for will maybe jerk him off every other month with a grimace on her face.

    He agreed. He’s decided to not pursue “the white picket fence” as a result and always used to try and tell me that he was happy with this decision but the truth is – when we finally got to it – is that he is so angry and unhappy that these are really just coping mechanisms. He’s so used to not even thinking hard about what he would actually want out of life that he couldn’t see at first how he was imposing all this on himself.

    I made clear that the only way for a man to live a happy life, and for men to collectively change the situation in our society, is to pursue an alpha strategy. He is so resistant to this, claiming it’s too much work, lol. He doesn’t want to put in the effort. I showed him how this wasn’t true and got him to admit that he’d just given up and really, he’s just an angry beta. Fyi an interesting side note is that he never really got the whole alpha/beta thing but rather was so activated by it emotionally and becomes so defensive when his ways are shown for what they are that he doesn’t allow any of this info to seep in. He also sees alpha as “technique” and I tried to explain that alpha is a self centered mindset which puts a man’s needs and desires first and foremost in his life. I showed him how his focus was all out there instead of internally and on his life. But still, he has no interest in changing his ways, he’d rather complain and pretend he’s happy.

    Betaness is the disease men must cure. Women are enforcing beta values and training betas and most men are jumping in with both feet. Fyi, I don’t believe alpha/beta is genetically determined except at the margins of the very ugly/very beautiful, genius/dumb, tall/short etc. I think every man could be alpha in his orientation towards himself, his life, sexuality and women. Sure, there are practical limitations on one’s SMV and not every man will know what it’s like to turn heads when he walks into a room, but every man can learn to be dominant and aggressive and to not be vassals to women, and to play the sexual dynamics on offer to their best advantage It’s all a matter of mindset and mental discipline – and loving oneself. What really started to move things for me is when I realized that of course I get to get what I want in life. That my sexual desires are nobody’s business and are not political. Really owning what I am and what I want makes being a vassal to women seem ridiculous.

    How does that translate into today? Tonight I play a showcase gig at a nice casual restaurant in town where there will be plenty of young attractive women. I’m down 3 belt notches from the first of the year (let myself go badly in the previous 8 months due to overwhelm), will dress fashionably and work the “amused mastery” vibe. I’ll use everything I know to my advantage. The real change is that I don’t personalize women’s reactions. At 51 (not bad looking though and could pass for 41), I don’t get much interest from the young hotties, but all I do now is look for the one who is. The one’s who aren’t interested are invisible to me now – isn’t that great? I used to feel like I was invisible to them – this is the difference between an alpha and a beta mindset. And in any event, if I do make a connection there, it will be just one of several women I’m pursuing as when I’m focused on just one woman I can’t be detached. Abundance and plate spinning really change one’s mindset. And I learned all this in less than a year and have made major changes in my behavior and attitude. If i can do it – any man can. But sadly, I think most men won’t.

    @ Minter – Still no shame, eh? How are YOUR children? Have you seen them lately? I wonder what they think of you? I imagine them coming here reading your comments talking about how you enjoy Kate and her kids and dog and just feeling great about their lives.

    What – you don’t like being known for the scumbag, child abandoning lowlife we all know you are? Perhaps you might stop commenting in public then. But until then, every time I encounter you I will berate you. Stop talking, start doing and start being a better man. Do that for like 10 years – be responsible and honest and not phony for 10 years. And then tell us what that is like – that could be interesting. Hell, try being an admirable, responsible, honest human being for 1 day…

  • jf12

    Glenn connects a solid. “I don’t get much interest from the young hotties, but all I do now is look for the one who is. The one’s who aren’t interested are invisible to me now – isn’t that great? I used to feel like I was invisible to them – this is the difference between an alpha and a beta mindset. And in any event, if I do make a connection there, it will be just one of several women I’m pursuing as when I’m focused on just one woman I can’t be detached. Abundance and plate spinning really change one’s mindset. And I learned all this in less than a year and have made major changes in my behavior and attitude. If i can do it – any man can.”

    Cosign. My major complaint is that evidently Game works best on new women, and not the old lady at home.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    @Glenn, you’ve likely read this already, but I’ll link it anyway for the benefit of your friend:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/21/kill-the-beta-2/

  • Jeremy

    Betas and Beta “production” were/was always the target of the FI. If it were not so widespread and uncontrolled it would seem like deliberate brainwashing. What is supposed to keep any individual whole is an acceptance of the reality their senses give to them. Obviously, time, place, and chance vary; These things will make our experienced sensations vary quite a bit in a population. The manufacturing of a beta, a true-believer beta, requires that some or all of his ability to perceive his reality and himself be rendered useless. This is best done early in life, when the mind is very bendable.

    Ever wonder why cult leaders are all men? One could argue that it’s just the sexual dimorphism that causes this, but that’s not really satisfying. The reason cults usually begin with a male as founder/leader, is because of their superior capability for self-deception. Women are the real pragmatic sex, the ones who never really lose touch with their own vulnerability and the need for self-protection because of it. It’s the men who are the romantics, the ones who dream and act on their dreams. However, a male following his own dream, while potentially sexy, is not a beta provider. If all men simply pursued their own industry, intellect and imagination first, and sex second, the human race would start to die out.

    So society and the FI, over centuries, concocted beautiful lies that rest on partial truths (the best lies always do). What you get is a subtle conditioning from the thinking and behavior of some (many?) women that will literally manufacture a beta provider. Telling a man that you “just want” a “nice guy”, is subtly telling that man to be less than he could be. When a woman says that, she’s actually saying, “Don’t aspire to anything or seek conflict.” It’s passive-aggressive conditioning on a global scale. When a woman says, “pay attention (or listen) to me,” she’s telling you to stop using your brain and regard her emotional vomit. She’s telling you to stop thinking and observing what she actually does (the medium) and instead be distracted by her (many times illogical) language. These and many other natural behaviors by women actually manufacture betas, whether the women realize it or not.

    By contrast, that which is unpolluted masculinity is prepared for, or even seeking conflict. To be an alpha is to know how to deal with conflict. To be a top-eschelon man in the SMV is to have proof of coming out on top of famous conflicts (famous generals, famous athletes, famous entrepreneurs). All masculinity rests on the acceptance of and resolution of conflict. This is why males deal with conflicts between males with a few bruises and an apology the next day; Whereas when women fight, they actually maim each other if they can. The masculine is designed and built for conflict and resolution, the feminine is not.

    The “natural” beta isn’t so much a beta as he is a man who recognizes his own limitations and seeks to optimize his own outcome based on those limitations. Not all men are physically attractive. Not all men are smart. As has been stated, the male bell curve in these areas is broad. So there will always be significantly more men who have less opportunity for easily securing female attention. Often these limitations for males are *temporary*, and in fact as men age, their limitations tend to disappear as they gain skills, experience, friends, colleagues, etc… This sense of limitation that men feel, particularly young men when they see the accomplishments of their elders, is a very powerful emotion. The FI plays on this by always offering what the alphas get, so long as the “limited man” operates by certain rules. Those “rules” of course, match the rules of the masculine world perfectly where all desires operate transactionally, and all real needs are given up without much thought. So the man with limitations is fed a rulebook that matches how he’s dealt with other men his whole life, and is told that women operate the same way. Is there a more insidious lie? Now you have young men, who convince themselves (or were convinced by the behaviors of the women around them) early on of their own limitations, and then build a world-view of how they’ll get what they want based on that.

    Now you now have yourself a dyed-in-the-wool beta. This will be a man who accepted limitations to himself (that were probably false) long ago. He has supplanted his own aspirations and dreams with that of getting all the female attention he wants by following a rulebook. He has eschewed conflict because he believes he cannot win and adopted the rules of the FI as “superior”. He has accepted that being a “nice” guy is better both because it fits in with his own self-perceived handicaps and the promise of sex. He has self-deceived himself into a corner of having to accept the rules of women. He has gone so far down the path of believing in his own limited nature that backing out now means abandoning significant percentages of how he views himself. Many of those betas were just late bloomers, caught by the FI and trained to be betas. Many of them could have been extremely attractive alphas later in life if the seductiveness of the FI had not begun twisting their internal thought processes to believe in self-limits.

    The FI has always been there to make betas of late-blooming men. It’s up to the older men to teach the young men to be patient and improve the self. It’s up to the older men to try and “leave no man behind” by not letting guys fall into a self-limiting self-perception early in life.

  • jf12

    Jeremy has struck oil, and it’s a gusher. “The FI has always been there to make betas of late-blooming men.”

    And, maybe alphas are just the early bloomers who get used to female attention. A LOT can be inferred from Jeremy’s idea.

  • Glenn

    @ Rollo – Thanks for the link, I’ll share it with my friend and yes I’ve read it and every other article on this site, some multiple times in fact. It’s very hard to internalize this stuff as it goes against so much conditioning but if one keeps at it, one will “pop”.

    @ Jeremy and Rollo – Alpha and Beta wrt how they are spoken about here are evidenced by mindset and behavior, yes? SMV is a separate concept and while a man may have some genetic/biological advantages wrt SMV, I know many good looking, high earning men who are complete betas. And some lower SMV guys who aren’t betas at all.

    I do agree that overcoming mental conditioning is hard to do, but indeed any man can change his mindset and recondition his worldview with effort. I still have many beta kind of ‘reactive’ ways of being, but I quickly see them and drop them once they appear.

    Do you agree that alpha and beta are innate? Do you think that any man can adopt an alpha mindset? Why or why not?

  • M Simon

    There was recently an article Roissy had up showing that being a criminal is more “reproductively fit” then not (a better word then good genes, and the person that thinks women select for anything other than thuggery is mistaken.

    Thuggery is only an indicator. What women want is a protector. Her children, her, her welfare. Courage is what they want to see. If you can fake courage you are home free. Disciplined courage. Being a risk taker is an indicator.

  • M Simon

    Do you agree that alpha and beta are innate? Do you think that any man can adopt an alpha mindset? Why or why not?

    Look up “monkey politics”. Most men can. Not all.

  • Kate

    @spicoli: He’s around. You can follow my gravatar to our site where he writes and I entertain in the intermissions.

  • Kate

    I believe everything I am currently thinking can be summed up in this quotation: “The romanticized notion of what we think of as ‘Honor’ today is simply a tool for the Feminine Imperative:”- Rollo

    Here, Glenn: http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/18/the-honor-system/

    When women don’t teach children to respect their fathers, the honor system breaks down. In the case of divorce, children, even more solipsistic than women, become “war children.” They are not to blame for this, but, it is the outcome unless both biological parents *actively* work to include each other.

    http://demarkate.com/index.php/19-parenting/51-war-children

  • Jeremy

    @Glenn

    SMV is a separate concept and while a man may have some genetic/biological advantages wrt SMV, I know many good looking, high earning men who are complete betas. And some lower SMV guys who aren’t betas at all.

    Yes, as I reread, I was wrong in that paragraph of mine. What I was trying to do was to illustrate differing levels of alpha and how they pertain to the acceptance of conflict/challenge. However, I used the term SMV where it did not belong in trying to do that.

  • Glenn

    @ Jeremy – I got what you were saying. I don’t read these comments expecting the precision of an academic paper anyway, lol. Keep up the great commentary.

  • Jeremy

    @ Glenn,

    I don’t think alpha and beta are genetic or innate or written in the stars. I do believe them to be mindsets. The mindsets come from different starting points though.

    The beta starts by believing in limits to himself, in self-control, etc… It’s a scarcity mindset. The beta mindset starts from fear of not measuring up, and adopting a ruleset that matches his own perception of how he is best going to maximize his outcome based on not measuring up. He never considers that his inability to measure up may be temporary, or a misperception of reality.

    The alpha starts from an abundance mindset. The alpha never stops to consider what might happen if he fails, he doesn’t give a shit. The alpha just goes and does what he wants. If he fails, or even if he dies, that is just life as an alpha. There is no ruleset for the alpha save what he makes for himself, he doesn’t try to measure up to anyone or anything, he just does.

    So yes, I do believe it’s a mindset. But mindsets can really gel into something that’s impossible to extract without significant psychotherapy.

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 5,752 other followers

%d bloggers like this: