For as often as I’ve made my best attempts to define what I believe constitutes feminine Hypergamy on this blog, it seems that critics of the red pill, and even newer, well-meaning red pill advocates, are beginning to think of Hypergamy as some convenient trope that manosphereans refer to when they want to explain away some annoyingly female trait.
Is she shit testing you? Must be Hypergamy. She broke a nail? Must be Hypergamy.
There is a very real want for understanding things in as simplistic a solution as possible, but feminine Hypergamy isn’t a dynamic that lends itself to a simple definitions. One of the reasons the early proponents of PUA ran into issues with legitimizing their ideas was due to so many of their ‘students’ seeking out easily digestible answers to solve their ‘girl problems’. As I laid out in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite, these guys wanted the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) footnote version of what to do in order to get to the silver bullet, magic formula part of the lesson to either get with their dream girl or “start fucking hot bitches”.
It is exactly this mentality that’s now causing such frustration in understanding Hypergamy and seeing how it works, not just in individual women’s personal decisions, but as a societally influencing force of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is not a “math is hard” dynamic, but because it requires a comprehensive (and evolving) understanding it seems like the go-to throwaway answer to women’s behaviors and mental schemas to men (usually new to the red pill) without the patience to really invest themselves into grasping it.
I’ve defined Hypergamy so often on this blog that if you search the term “hypergamy” in Google, the Rational Male blog is the number two return below the wikipedia definition. As I write my way through the second volume of the Rational Male book I’ve found that a concise understanding of feminine Hypergamy is vital to grasping so much of the social and psychological dynamics that are a result of it. Every PUA technique, every common frustration MGTOW experience, and every gender-biased social injustice MRAs set themselves against, all find their roots in feminine Hypergamy, women’s pluralistic sexual strategy and the social and legal manifestation employed to ensure maximal feminine social primacy in optimizing Hypergamy.
Looks vs Character (Game)
Over the course of the past five or so posts, the topic of discussion in the comment threads has eventually found its way back to the basics of Looks versus Character (or Game, depending on your perspective of how learning affects character). Only discussions over what constitutes ‘Alpha’ in a man are so contentious as the importance women prioritize physical arousal in men.
I’ve already covered this debate and what I believe influences women’s arousal priorities in the Looks Count and Have A Look posts. My intent with today’s post isn’t to reheat these old debates, but rather to investigate a bit further into the connection between Hypergamy and this arousal prioritization.
First and foremost it’s important to understand the part that women’s biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women’s biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I’ll ask that readers refer to my post Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women’s sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation.
In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women a similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.
What I’ve described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade’s worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.
Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction.
For further reading on Ovulatory Shift, see the research of Martie Hasselton.
Arousal vs. Attraction
From last week’s post, in one of his less long-winded comments, commenter Siirtyrion inserted this bit of evolutionary truth:
Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage (i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term) fantasy partner.
This current social pattern increases highly male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ‘preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.
I believe one of the main contentions Siirtyrion kind of needles with this is that, as described, modern conveniences of female social empowerment (actual or imagined) discounts the need for hypergamic assurances of long term security. I’m not so willing to accept an overall disregard for the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) – you’re not going to reprogram millennia of psychologically evolved firmware overnight – but in discounting this need, the characteristics for which women would seek out a male exemplifying the best long-term security are deemphasized if not considered entirely.
If you read through any woman’s online dating profile you undoubtedly come across some variation of what Roissy has described as the “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy. While I don’t think there are quite that many items on the checklist, you’ll find a host of common-theme personal qualities a guy has to have in order to be her boyfriend – confident (above all), humorous, kind, intelligent, creative, decisive, sensitive, respectful, spiritual, patient,..I could go on or you could just read this old joke.
The point is that all of these characteristics that women list as being ‘attractive’ have absolutely no bearing on how sexually, physically, ‘arousing’ a woman finds a man. As I’ve described in the past, while Game and personality can certainly accentuate arousal, all of these esoteric personal qualities have no intrinsic “‘gina tingle” value if a man isn’t an arousal prospect to begin with.
The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ‘attractive’ IS what makes him ‘arousing’. So when he models himself (often over the course of a lifetime) to personally identify with this checklist of attractive prerequisites he’s often frustrated and angered when all of that personal development makes for little difference when a woman opts to regularly fuck men of a better physical standard.
It’s duplicity of a sort, but it is also a strategy of deliberate confusion.
It may not be a woman’s conscious plan, but this deliberate confusion makes the best pragmatic sense to effect an optimized Hypergamy. Remember that Hypergamy is not just Alpha Fucks, it’s also Beta Bucks … if a bit delayed in her life in order to maximize Alpha Fucks. So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” – because they shine her in the best light, yes, but also because in being so concerned she imputes the idea that she’s following the ‘right’ plan of looking for a good man to have a future with, and raise kids with.
Then and Now
This is going to sound like I’m glossing myself, but bear with me – I can remember how effortless sex used to be for me when I was in my 20’s. I had sex outdoors, in cars, hotel rooms, in hot tubs, in the steam room of an all women’s gym (after hours), I even got after it with a girlfriend in the balcony of a church in L.A. once (again after hours, no one around, only for convenience I assure you). Mostly I didn’t have a dime to my name, but I still had one of two fuck-buddies who would literally come to the bedroom window of my apartment to fuck me in the morning once or twice a week before I went off to the community college I was going to.
The point is there was no pretense of ‘attraction’ being anything other than a girl and I enjoying ourselves then. There was no ‘checklist’ of acceptable pre-qualifications for intimacy. The providership necessity that dictates a need for long-term consideration wasn’t even an afterthought; in other words, the Beta Bucks / Character / Integrity aspect of Hypergamy that women publicly claim is a dealbreaker for real intimacy was prioritized far below Alpha Fucks sexual urgency.
You can say these were just the types of girls I was getting with at the time, but courtesy of social media, I assure you, you would think these women would never have had that capacity now. They were all “sooo different when they were in college.”
It’s not until after a woman’s Epiphany Phase at around the time she becomes aware of her SMV decline that she begins to consider making that Beta Bucks checklist any kind of prerequisite for sex and intimate partnering. However, this epiphany isn’t the sudden revelation women would like men to believe it is.
For the life of me I can’t remember where I read the link, but I was reading a ‘Dear Abby’ sort of advice seeking article from a young girl (early 20’s) who was exasperated over finding the “perfect guy” only she couldn’t ‘get with him now‘. Her words were something like “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”
On some level of consciousness, like most women, she knows the dictates of what her own Hypergamy is predisposing her to. She knows she’ll eventually need that ‘perfect’ supportive, in-love guy to live out the long-term aspect of her Hypergamy with,…after she’s exhausted her short term breeding potential with men who better embody the Alpha Fucks dictates of her Hypergamy.
Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation
For all of Siirtyrion’s vernacular, I will have to agree (to a point) that the balance between women’s short term breeding impulse and the long term provisioning needs Hypergamy predisposes them to now strongly favors the Alpha sex side of that optimization.
In Open Hypergamy I made a case for the aspect of an ‘old order’ of Beta Provisioning being a previously ‘attractive’ element for women’s determining long term suitability with a man, and that this old order was being replaced with other, extrinsic means of ensuring a woman’s security needs. Whether by social funding, or by indenturing men to provide for women’s wellbeing through other social conventions the effect is an imbalance between the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy.
However, I also feel it goes beyond just the social element now. Men are still confused by a feminine conditioning which wants to ‘freeze’ him in time in order to be the dutiful ‘perfect’ guy, ready to be thawed out and ready to serve the Feminine Imperative at a woman’s convenience.
While still convenient, men must be conditioned to confuse him that ‘attraction’ qualities are ‘arousal’ qualities in order to have him ready to be ‘perfect’ at his appointed time – and it is women who need to believe for themselves that this is what they think should be true.
The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy
In the beginning of one of my earliest posts, Schedules of Mating, I briefly refer to the ideally balanced guy who would satisfy the optimization purpose of women’s Hypergamy:
There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.
There is a dichotomy that exists for men in this respect, which really has no parallel for women.
I am aware of certain (formerly red pill) bloggers who promote the archetype of a ‘Good’ guy as some role for men to ideally aspire to. The ‘Alpha Cad’ archetype must necessarily become the ‘douchebag’ caricature of an overtly distasteful masculinity (for men less able to embody it) and yet, the opposite caricature of the doormat, supplicating ‘Beta Dad’ is equally distasteful and certainly untenable when we consider that ‘attractive’ qualities are never ‘arousing’ qualities.
So the archetype of the ‘Good’ guy is offered up as some sort of livable, compromised ideal. If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ‘perfect’ catch for any woman of course.
The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.
It comes back to the Just Get It principle for women – any guy who needs to make a concerned effort to become what he expects women will want from him to be ‘the perfect guy’ doesn’t get it. They want Mr. Perfect because that is who he already is.
I mentioned above that there really is no parallel for this in women and I’m sure the Madonna / Whore dichotomy will be mentioned in the comments later, but allow me to point out that there is no concerted parallel social effort on the part of women in which women prompt each other to become a ‘Good Girl’ in order to satisfy the ideals of men. If anything a hostile opposite resistance to this is most true.
Women neither expect nor want a ‘Good Guy’ because he’s not believable, and his genuineness is always doubtable. That may sound jaded, but throw away any idea of being a ‘Good Guy’ balance of Alpha and Beta, because the Beta side of ‘good’ is so reinforced and common in men that it’s become the default template for women’s perception of you.
There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.
That’s the Man who Just Gets It.
September 3rd, 2014 at 10:42 am
I was at MMSL for about two days, when I first discovered the sphere. Heartiste was first, and then I went to MMSL. Kind of one extreme to the other. It seemed a very touchy/feely type place to me. And I’m kind of a prick. Or…clam. A happy clam, but a clam.
September 3rd, 2014 at 10:46 am
Oh crap…didn’t see it was on a new page and thought it had deleted me due to language. But I also discovered a new code to get around that!
September 3rd, 2014 at 10:51 am
@Kate
Interesting hypothesis and analysis in your post above. Do you think the
mechanization and industrialization of western civilization has anything to do with the changes in people and the disparities you reference between the cultures?
I agree there may be some genetic influence that you attribute these changes and disparities to. However, the bicycle, swimming pool, skate board, pogo stick, trampoline, etc. has been widely replaced with X-Box, TV, Ipad, computer, etc. The human metabolisim operates in a narrow range that will not facilitate the obesity we see. Numerous studies have proven that obesity is related to diet first, exercise second, and lastly genetic factors. Obesity due to genetics is almost exclusively related to serious malfunctions such as thyroid issues. Sugary, pasty, low nutritional value food is cheap and widely available today. I think the changes and disparities occur far more due to lifestyle than genetic differences.
September 3rd, 2014 at 11:17 am
@Nathan & Acksiom
RE: Cum for Bigfoot *sigh*
Acksiom had a good take on this, however, and I’m just throwing this conjecture out there for discussion, that particular tingle dynamic of total sexual submission to the physically overpowering beast made me think of this recent article:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/neanderthals-humans-may-have-had-sex-millennia-study-n185311
http://guardianlv.com/2014/08/mystery-humans-apparently-helped-spice-up-sex-lives-of-ancient-hominins/
Just saying…that ‘genetic variance’ drive might be more deeply evolved than we imagine.
Heheh…
September 3rd, 2014 at 11:41 am
“There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.
That’s the Man who Just Gets It.”
You’re kidding, right? That sounds like the man who ‘gets it’ til he’s old and alone. Not even another man wants to be dominated by such a childish version of self-command.
No woman worth having wants an inward-turned emotionally stunted bully. You men are taking your rejection bitterness to laughable dimensions.
But maybe, poster, that’s what it takes to entertain your little tribe of disaffected and alone followers. Preaching to the choir in your church of ‘We Hate Women But We Still Want Sex.’
Hint — everybody has a ‘frame’ and if you don’t want to exist in mine, why should I exist in yours? Maleness isn’t about bullying women. You SO don’t even get it at all.
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:23 pm
You men here NEED to ask yourselves if you even like women. If you don’t then no amount of red-pill bullshit is gonna help.
Women are human beings just like you. Start there. Or maybe start by examining your misogynistic vitriol. You all come across as knee-jerk haters.
If you don’t actually like women then I suggest you all come out of the closet and just start jerking each other off for real. I mean that’s what you’re all here for — to boost your egos with the other losers.
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:26 pm
@Tilikum
I don’t like bringing up my own subjective experiences here because as I’ve stated before, they don’t apply to everyone. It is the objective data that truly lays the groundwork for why things are the way they are, which is why most of the material I write on here will remain objective in nature.
But if you must know, most of my colleagues (I work in academia) share the same sentiments as me. And yes, I do consider them friends since we often go out and discuss issues at large. We don’t see eye to eye on all subjects but it is nonetheless interesting to argue at times and gain different perspective on the sexes from people you know personally.
I’ve been in a relationship for 2 years now and it’s been going great. This knowledge that I give to you guys has helped me in more ways that I can count. Knowing truly is half the battle here. I’m never paranoid about Hypergamy but rest assure, I know it’s always lurking in the background with my current girl or any other girl I would eventually pair with.
@LiveFearless
No one here is complaining. If anything I’m simply laying out to you what has always been true about what women find the most attractive in a mate (looks). They’re much like men in some aspects.
As for fitness, it is very important and it’s nothing that I have ever shied from in my life. Currently, I work out 3 times a week and jog 3 miles twice a week. When I was younger, I was in Jui Jitsu and Muay Thai. Needless to say, I’ve always had an active lifestyle.
@eon
Thank you, I appreciate it. Your comments refuting my positions have also made me think.
@Kate
Been there; covered that. These are past comments that I have written on here. Have a look at some quoted below.
On ecological factors:
And the other one on “parasite avoidance” and “highly functioning immune systems”:
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:27 pm
“I mean that’s what you’re all here for — to boost your egos with the other losers.”
And you’re here for…?
That big ego boost you get from insulting participants in forums you disagree with?
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:32 pm
Indeed Rollo, up to 4% of autosomal DNA (if you’re not pure Sub-Saharan African) looks to have come from H. Neanderthalensis.
What’s more striking is that it’s not the SAME 1-4% in everyone. Researchers postulate that up to 20% of the entire Neanderthal genome is sprinkled throughout today’s population. We don’t all have the same fragments. And it appears that ancient H. Sapiens populations in Europe had higher proportions of Neanderthal: Otzi the Iceman, who lived in the Alps 5300 years ago, was over 5%.
The main encounter appears to have occurred ~80-90kyA in the Middle East, after which the Mt. Toba eruption imposed a serious bottleneck on the population. Subsequent admixture events with different Neanderthal populations may have occurred as recently as 35kyA.
This makes sense if Neanderthals (and their ancestors, who were probably H. Heidelbergensis) had lived in cooler climates for hundreds of thousands of years, long enough to evolve adaptations like depigmented skin for increased Vitamin D absorption, and certain immune system features. From a selfish genome’s perspective, if you are the encroaching hominid population, it is far easier to borrow these adaptations through breeding than to wait to develop them on your own.
There was at least one more distinct archaic hominid population that contributed DNA to modern humans, and it is very likely that more will be found as we piece the puzzle together. DNA from this group, the Denisovans, is found in modern indigenous populations as far apart as Tibet and Australia.
How does this relate to beast-fiction? No Neanderthal Y-chromosomes or mtDNA exist in today’s population…
Well, due to a phenomenon called Haldane’s rule, male offspring of inter-hominid pairings were most likely sterile. So Sapiens Y chromosomes did not last long in Neanderthal populations, and neither did Neanderthal Y chromosomes propagate through Sapiens populations.
BUT, in a case where a male Neanderthal mated with a female Sapiens, and the offspring were female, that offspring COULD sometimes pass on her genes with another Sapiens. Her offspring would receive her Sapiens mtDNA but her autosomal DNA would be ~25% Neanderthal.
I call “us” Sapiens rather than “Humans” because the Homo Neanderthalensis were Human. That’s the Latin “Homo”.
Hence your beast-fiction, written by women for women.
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Liz — insulting women is the paradigm here. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it. I mean sniveling when the shoe is on the other foot is just so beta, right?
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Oh and Liz … you just reinforced my point. You wrote :
And you’re here for…?
That big ego boost you get from insulting participants in forums you disagree with?”
So are you saying only one opinion is welcome here? Or that I can’t reply in the vernacular used here?
In other words, are you scared of other points of view? I’d say a great big YES from what I’ve read.
[You could say that but you’d be wrong]
So – I’m here cuz you little boys need me to tell you how to be men. You wouldn’t be here if you were winners.
And I know you’re not winners cuz of the stupid angry stuff you believe. You believe your lack of relationship happiness is a woman’s fault. That’s your biggest mistake and falling for simplistic systems ala red-pill and alpha just make you look like little boys playing with, umm, let’s say an erector set. Toys are for boys. Women are for men.
September 3rd, 2014 at 12:57 pm
@Blind Lemon
The problem with Athol’s rebrand is that there are far more
“marriage counselors”“life-coaches” who’ve been marketing the same equalist-compromise product for much longer than he has. That kind of market saturation is going to be the end of MMSL.…and even marriage counselors with their doctorates in blue-pill gender relations still can’t come to terms with red pill realities:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201408/why-great-husbands-are-being-abandoned-0
Translation: They don’t want to fuck them anymore.
After reading articles like this from certified marriage counselors you’ll have to pardon my calling bullshit about any real need for more Beta sensitivity from men.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:12 pm
Rollo wrote:
“Translation: They don’t want to fuck them anymore.”
True. But how about extending your thought process a bit further and ask WHY they don’t want to fuck their husbands any more. Or don’t you care?
[I take it that it’s your practice to simply read through comment threads without actually having read the blog post?]
If anyone cares then ask a woman who will tell you straight. Hint: it isn’t a woman who wants or needs something from you.
Additional hint: you have to be ready to hear what she says. You men want to tell women what they think based on what YOU want.
[Leave it to a woman to think men would ever presume to tell them what they “should” think. No dear, we learn by observation; we watch what you do and learn from what your behaviors (not your words) teach us. Behavior is the only true evidence of motive. The Medium IS the Message.]
That self-referential narcissism doesn’t even work with your kids. Why would it work with anyone else?
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:26 pm
By the way, this whole (lol) “Fappening” episode, the leak of celebrity nude selfies, might be deserving of a writeup.
I feel bad for the victims and certainly do not condone the whole thing, but what’s interesting to me are the wider sociological messages that are being sent.
Essentially, it appears to be about maximizing one gender’s sexual freedom while minimizing another’s, a theme you’ve touched on before. Powerful and famous dudes have been busted sending selfies, and they got skewered, ruined, and generally ridiculed. Nobody cried about their privacy having been violated.
But for these women, the mystery of their sexual nature is their currency in trade. They (and the industry around them) make their living from it, from titillating with it, from dangling it in our faces. For the public to find out a) what they look like naked, and b) what their true nature is – i.e. they’re not perfect otherworldly role models but normal human beings with randy impulses – seriously undermines their leverage, the image they’ve laboured to cultivate. Their secret – the stark truth about their nature – is out. This is why it is so damaging.
Once again, I’m not justifying the actions of the hackers – although Snowden sure as heck did try to warn everyone.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Rollo — you inserted a link into my post instead of responding to me like, might I say, a man?
Big-footing my post is exactly indicative of the mentality here. You work diligently to instill your readers with misogyny. Is that the point?
If it is then I’ll next your blog. No point throwing my pearls before swine.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Please do next us, infinite
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:31 pm
I see no reason in reiterating topics for a troll that I’ve already addressed in detail years before and my readership is already familiar with. I’m doing you the favor of linking them.
Go read dear.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:37 pm
@George Numerous studies have proven that obesity is related to diet first, exercise second, and lastly genetic factors. Obesity due to genetics is almost exclusively related to serious malfunctions such as thyroid issues. Sugary, pasty, low nutritional value food is cheap and widely available today.
Exactly! Being thin is something I do by choice. Every day it is a choice. It requires discipline and actual work. Plus, the ‘hit and run’ affected my sense of taste. What I consume is intentional. Each ingredient is meant to rebuild my body and mind.
This is not about the evolution of genes where the higher status have the thin gene and others do not. This is about the choice to consume stuff that’s been processed or/and microwaved and loaded with countless chemicals to kill insects that are attracted to unhealthy plants. A simple google search will show that most ‘vegetables’ have only been given three nutrients instead of the more than 50 they need.
Therefore, the human body thinks it is starving because it’s not getting the nutrients.
Blaming genetics shows a lack of easily attainable (and free) education.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:37 pm
Infinitewhatever, writing a paper for her gender studies class at Sarah Lawrence (or is it Northern Virginia Community College?):
Liz is a woman, not a man-boy with mommy issues as you suggest. Her man is a man who flies shit-hot pieces of metal, the selection process for which weeds out approximately 9,999/10,000 candidates. So be a good little girl and do some research before you go all ad hominem on the grown-ups, and start instructing them on how the world works. We’re the people who make gender studies departments a social luxury, a rounding error on any calculation of human endeavor. Get back to us when you are in the .001% of your field.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:40 pm
I’m not a troll just because I don’t lick up your shit. I’m actually quite sincere. And I’m a woman willing to tell you woman-truth. But everything I’m seeing here is about vicious hate towards women and castrated self-pity for men.
Women don’t want to fuck a guy who can’t convince her to fuck him. Now was that so hard to figure out? If you ain’t getting it guys, it’s cuz you ain’t closing the deal!
I mean come on. Longwinded bullshit about evolution? Really?
What if you’re a car salesman and you can’t sell any cars. You gonna whine to your buddies or up your game?
And by upping your game I don’t mean manipulation tactics. Manipulators attract their own kind.
But that doesn’t fit your misogyny does it? Tell your mother how much you hate women, Rollo. As far as I can tell you need to get back to her tit and start over cuz you missed something there.
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Buena Vista — man or woman?
And since you want to school me, tell me how your success with your life and wo/men has improved since you’ve been here. Scoring lots more? Testimonials dude! Let’s have them. I mean bullshit walks, right?
September 3rd, 2014 at 1:54 pm
You haven’t even read the comment thread to ask that question, dear. In my company you wouldn’t even get the interview, iow.
September 3rd, 2014 at 2:03 pm
To further contrast the ridiculousness of the uproar over celebrity nude photo leaks, and how stark the contrast is in how the media treats the genders:
Where have we seen, recently, truly abominable acts of violation and horror? The beheadings of journalists in the Middle East. And yet, the media does not hesisate to include in their coverage the notion that *they knew the risks* and *they knew what they were getting into*. Of course they did, they were intelligent and brave men with agency who died for a greater cause and should be remembered as heroes.
But celebrity selfies? Their theft and dissemination too is being loudly and vocally criticized as a horrible violation. I’m not saying it isn’t – although I’m pretty sure it’s preferable to a beheading – but IF YOU SO MUCH AS HINT that they should’ve known the risks involved with digitizing themselves, WAAAAAAAAAAAAA! You’re blaming the victim!!!!
Are you serious? Do you really want to infantilize these women and take away all their agency?
September 3rd, 2014 at 2:25 pm
@infinitegapinghole,
Many of us have no problem getting laid, and are here to cultivate a more rational understanding of the world.
don’t kid yourself, you’re not blowing it apart, you’re reinforcing it.
September 3rd, 2014 at 2:37 pm
FWIW, infinitesadness is Guest on J4G:
http://www.justfourguys.com/epistle-to-evan-marc-katz/#comment-133833
September 3rd, 2014 at 2:50 pm
In case anyone had any doubt left about ovulatory shift in women’s mate preferences:
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/Gildersleeve,%20Haselton,%20Fales%20(2014)%20reply%20to%20Wood%20et%20al.,%20Harris%20et%20al.%20psych%20bull%20.pdf
Last nail in the Aunt Giggles denial coffin.
Boom!
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:25 pm
I will weigh in on the MMSL band wagon here.
MMSL and Athol were my entry point into the red pill along with the Ian’s red pill room. I may as well have been at the dead bedrooms reddit and someone tipped me off the idea of outcome independence. within 48 hours I had consumed the Primer and was dieting, working out, on the MMSL forum etc.
It took a while but it sure as shit worked for me and my rapidly declining marriage. Eventually I had to, for a number of reasons share the basics of RP thinking with my wife, who found it to be awesome, she totally loved it. But being the curious chick she is, she insisted on ferreting out more knowledge and eventually found MMSL and my posts. KABOOM!!!!
Given that I had trickle truthed her about a previous indiscretion what she found on the forums was problematic, so I had my ID scrubbed for a while I Alpha’d up at home and settled the dust some.
I learned a few things from this turn of events. Indeed, she did just want me to “get it”. There was an unavoidable sense of disappointment after she read my posts, .e.g. my journey from Blue to Red pill, that somehow the success of my change had been deflated by having been observed in gory detail by her. The maxim, they want to know, but they never want full disclosure, was in full effect.
I posit that this was for multiple reasons. One, Men just need to get it. Two, by seeing the forum, the ideas, and charting or seeing my progress, she had an external formalized set of standards as the what being alpha or red pill meant, that she would now judge me by. I knew when I was MAPPING away and hauling ass on self improvement that I never wanted her to know the how, the why or there where of these changes in me and our relationship. I knew all along that she had to believe that these changes came from me so I kept the red pill and MMSL a secret. It was a deflation for her in many regards when she figured out that there is a road map available for purchase, and there is a set of behaviours and standards almost that can be adhered to. So she almost immediately went about evaluating me against not how much I had changed or improved over the last 18 months, but rather a set of external standards documented in MMSL. So the green curtain was pulled back and it didn’t seem all that magical anymore, so my stock went down somewhat. Eventually she realized that “hey, the changes, regardless of how they came about are still a positive”. But there is always a nagging sense that now the MMSL site can actually be used as a blow back shit test against me. there is a nagging sense that, “It didn’t come from him, in its entirety, so it’s just not for real” and that is like acid being thrown on the Alpha at the time when you really might need the credibility of Alpha the most.
Eventually I went back to MMSL and participated again in a more limited fashion. By then the pay wall had gone up, but I was still a silver member, so I can do enough participation to amuse myself. But alas, the place really has changed over the last 2 years. I entirely agree with Rollo et al, that the enduring presence of women in any forum that is ostensibly for men will corrupt it’s purpose and effectiveness. Female posts outweigh men 2:1 now and they have quite predictably taken on their usual mantle of “women know the most about relationships so you should defer to us”. Not to mention that it is a positive feedback loop, where most men arriving there are indeed blue pill, so they automatically defer to women very easily, thus fucking it all up in short order.
I have made some “brash” comments over there recently and they cause a stir for sure. These same comments two years ago would have been cheered on, debated and tossed about the men folk quite happily. Now the veneer of fem-centric civility is slowly descending on the place and choking the vitality out of it, in all the ways predicted by Rollo.
I cannot blame Athol for the pay to play approach, or the inevitable direction towards a more sanitized version of RP. Once he got outed at work over the forum he was fucked in the mainstream healthcare world anyhow, so at that point he had to go all in on MMSL from a money perspective. To succeed, he only needs to make marriages better for some period of time and ideally charge large for consulting on the phone with clients. He doesn’t need to be true to the RP principals he started with. The economic imperative will meld with the feminine imperative and he will scavange what he needs to from the rest of the manosphere,
I owe Athol my marriage, I’ll give him that, but in my view he’s lost the plot within the manospehere.
September 3rd, 2014 at 3:48 pm
(For clarification, the earlier Kate comment was written by Mark using my gravatar.)
@infinitemptiness: How did you find your way into the Manosphere? Its definitely a mixed bag of healthy and unhealthy people and messages. Good luck!
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:11 pm
infinitemptiness-
You have posted some very “spirited” responses here. Thanks for being honest.
This is not an attack on you or a loaded question.
Just about anyone reviewing this site will have strong emotional reactions to the subject and it’s analysis here. Both males and females are reacting to it with some insecurity and anger. You are undeniably upset as your responses reflect.
This may require some thought and time and again this is not an attack or a loaded question. My question is – why specifically do you think you are upset. If all this is only looser bullshit from some people who happen to be male, then why be upset? Why waste your time reviewing it and writing responses? Aren’t there other men available who aren’t “losers” dishing out all this “bullshit” that would be better to spend your time and energy on? Surely there must be, otherwise you would have nothing to compare the us to and classify us as “losers”.
Why does all this bother you so much?
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:26 pm
George,
Good points. It really is a perplexing question. If the “manosphere” is really just a super small minority of loser, basement dwelling, small-dicked men, then why all the angst? Why come to blogs like Rational Male, and JFG just to tell us what small dicked losers we are? What’s the point? Why do so many other blogs spend so much time, energy, and words trying to refute the manosphere?
The reason is we are starting to have an impact…the knowledge and views are starting to spread, because they are correct and work. I suspect for some this is terrifying especially if they are ego-invested or have other agendas tied to the status quo and male ignorance.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:41 pm
Agent P,
It took a while but it sure as shit worked for me and my rapidly declining marriage. Eventually I had to, for a number of reasons share the basics of RP thinking with my wife, who found it to be awesome, she totally loved it. But being the curious chick she is, she insisted on ferreting out more knowledge and eventually found MMSL and my posts. KABOOM!!!!
Given that I had trickle truthed her about a previous indiscretion what she found on the forums was problematic, so I had my ID scrubbed for a while I Alpha’d up at home and settled the dust some.
I learned a few things from this turn of events. Indeed, she did just want me to “get it”. There was an unavoidable sense of disappointment after she read my posts, .e.g. my journey from Blue to Red pill, that somehow the success of my change had been deflated by having been observed in gory detail by her. The maxim, they want to know, but they never want full disclosure, was in full effect.
I believe for women knowing all the details of the process corrupts the perception of the end product. It is kind of like sausage making. The end product is tasty, but the manufacturing process could be disgusting. I think this is how women feel when they know all the “gory details” in transitioning from supplicating beta to a more alpha temperament. We had a fascinating conversation on JFG that I think Yohami kick-started, and it was essentially the difference between “being” and “doing”. Women prioritize the “being” not the “doing”. So you should just “be” more alpha, you shouldn’t have to learn and then “do” X,Y,Z to be more alpha because that is “less real”. You are a “phony alpha”. I think men know and realize you are not born a great free throw shooter, you go in the gym and shoot tens of thousands of free throws.
September 3rd, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Observing the process will change that process.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:26 pm
@ Rollo, @Morpheus.
Totally agree, that’s why I had kept the “source of my knowledge” under wraps for so long. I wanted to set about the change in myself on my terms, and I knew the minute she knew about it, it would be up for debate, negotiation, evaluation on her terms or those of the FI if I wasn’t careful about it. It was very much better when all she knew and experienced was simply my trajectory from AFC to that cool hawt somewhat reckless and powerful, enigmatic guy she married in the first place.
I struggled greatly with the thought of telling her or not about RP. Ultimately I was glad I did, as it actually had this massive rolling effect through the extended family and it all of a sudden brought all manner of things into focus for her in many interpersonal and intra-sexual relationships. It brought so much of her own behaviour into focus, both good and bad behaviour. It allowed for a brutal level of honesty within the relationship that we had avoided for years and it broke the back on a lot of problems in our relationship once and for all. But yes, she saw inside the sausage grinder for a few seconds too long and she cannot un-see it.
I was successful in getting her to stop hunting down manosphere knowledge. There’s so much stuff like ROK that is a bit too unvarnished to be able to be explained away in the context of an LTR. Thankfully, what she first found and got very engaged in was in fact rationalmale. As it was her swallowing of the red pill, it was of course somewhat bitter. But as a Philosophy major, who also happens to be a brand manager in the beverage alcohol business, she somehow seemed to like Rollo’s writing a lot.
Currently I feel I am beyond the “process” and just doing what I do. Much of my behaviour now is that which was suppressed in middle life but was abundant in my adolescence. Difference is now it has a mission and a greatly enhanced sense of agency.
So yes, I work quietly at my mastery, I make progress, I make mistakes, I work hard to be critical of my own work and efforts so as to improve in the future. Thankfully she tends to respond very strongly to the NOW. So over time the short lived vision of the sausage grinder recedes from her mind as I simply AM the man I want to be. That and I keep studying without speaking about any of it, so I am usually three steps ahead of her behaviour and she knows it.
Red pill for the win!
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:35 pm
agent p,
Your wife’s situation is one of those times where the rationalization hamster can actually do some good.
September 3rd, 2014 at 5:59 pm
@infinitemptiness
you have lots of anger there, which is unfortunate, I hope you are able to come to terms with it so you can be a happier person some day. I think perhaps you need a little Yoda in your life, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering.”
It’s unfortunate you choose to cast this “basement full of losers” as such. The things I have learned around here and in similar places have helped me restructure my life to great effect. It’s saved my marriage, made my wife much happier and made me a happier person.
For my part I don’t hate women at all, I quite like them. Hell I even married one and produced another one of them too.
It’s funny in that now I have absorbed the knowledge offered here its much easier for me to in fact love women then previously for now I understand them so much better. I can make sense of their behaviour, their actions, the things they say especially when they don’t even understand why they are doing it. I cannot hate my cat for biting me if I ruffle its primordial instinctual feathers, so I cannot condemn my wife for some stupid shit she does occasionally because she is “simply being a woman as nature created her”. I now have a perspective on what both men and women do that offers me a great degree of calm, patience and understanding that I never had before.
No doubt you will call me out for being paternalistic, and yes, it’s true I am now very much paternalistic in my dealings with women. Father does indeed know best why we do what we do in our house and beyond. My greater understanding of female behaviour has in fact allowed me to forgive my wife some pretty bad things, simply because I can understand how some things, despite the best of her intentions, were really just her playing out the script that is so well documented by Rollo and others like him.
So we collectively find it entertaining when you come here wanting to tell “woman truth”. It’s entertaining because that’s what we were fed our whole lives and strived to work towards. All the while with diminishing returns for both ourselves, but also those around us, including my wife. The more I gave her what she said she wanted, the worse things became for us. for someone like me, it is precisely the “woman truth” that I was force fed for so long that nearly destroyed my relationship with my wife.
If you think that I have to “manipulate” my wife to have her want to sleep with me, you are mistaken and you sleight her also by suggesting that she is so feeble minded as to be susceptible to outright manipulation. Even if I did “manipulate” her into sleeping with me, I doubt it would be a long standing arrangement as people who look back and feel manipulated tend to feel rather cautious about the next encounter.
No, we simply base our relationship now on biological realities that seem to have far more traction in real life than any manner of negotiation, or contemplation, or wanting to lift oneself up above the animals by sheer force of intellect and will as we did in the past and amazingly, its all really simple and good and makes us both much happier people. It takes brutal honesty, hard work and discipline but it really works very nicely.
Misogyny? No, I don’t think so. Simply identifying a certain pattern of behaviour and creating adaptive strategies is not innately evil, everyone does it all the time. If those patterns of behaviour are ubiquitous well why wouldn’t you do that? What makes it so horrible to observe, everywhere, that for example, “Men evaluate sexual partners for fitness in less than a second”. I have no doubt you can agree immediately that “men evaluate women for sexual fitness” all the time right? (Those sexist fuckers!!!) Everyone around here agrees with that.
If you can agree with that easily observable phenomenon, can you not see some other simple truths that perhaps women don’t want to hear because its impolite in mixed company? Like say, “a physically hot guy gets even you wet, even if he is as dumb as a bag of hammers”. PS, don’t listen to the front of your brain when you test my assertion, watch your own body language. go look at a picture of a hot guy. What did you body do?
September 3rd, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Men are trying to improve their relationships with women without consulting women about it. That is the manosphere in a nutshell. Period.
In the minds of delusional people, this equals “manipulation.”
September 4th, 2014 at 1:39 am
@Stuttie “the right Game, at the right time of the cycle”
hey this also applies to my “Break-up Game”
fuck the crap out of her when shes receptive to Alpha and then break-up with her when shes after provisioning.
“My Ex-wife just increased my Child Support payments to $204 per month”
Pussy => Snapped shut and GGONE !!
Honestly you could be a Millionaire but if a few hundred dollars a month are going to your Ex-wife the resentment will burn a hole in her amygdala (the Lizard Brain) like chinese water torture.
September 4th, 2014 at 6:54 am
Kate: “(For clarification, the earlier Kate comment was written by Mark using my gravatar.)”
Was that the one about the (ostensible) inheritance of “bitch genes”?
September 4th, 2014 at 7:55 am
@ infinitemptiness- please please please can you also add your ‘insightful’ commentary to our friends at the Chateau? Here is a link…
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/the-best-all-purpose-chat-reply-to-any-girls-obnoxious-question/
@ Rollo – funny stuff linking infinitemptiness’s vitriol to your previous posts. Hilarious…
September 4th, 2014 at 9:01 am
I wanted to write how I just can’t understand these feminists and their hatred, but then realized I already know the answer.
Most of them are plain ugly and don’t want their female competitors to be happy so they sabotage them. Think about cutting your hair short, for example. On the other hand they’re hating men as well because they can’t get the d they want so they project all their issues on them. Think about misogyny although it’s plain to see that they’re the ones who started to be misandric in the first place. I really enjoyed the previous comment about if you interact with a women to always assume projection in her statements.
Plus, and Rollo mentioned it several times before, they need to preserve the FI and therefore need to keep men in a state of delusion about it and what else would be better suited to do that than irrational accusations, contradictions and shaming tactics.
Feminism in a nutshell.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:07 am
“I believe for women knowing all the details of the process corrupts the perception of the end product.”
When women seek to know the details of the process, they attempt to change the less palatable parts of the process, substitute “kinder, gentler” processes, and engraft on additional filler (some of it superfluous, some of it downright harmful). They also deny all of the foregoing.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:14 am
they attempt to change the less palatable parts of the process
And are then infinitely frustrated that there are no Good Men when they succeed in this attempt.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:18 am
It’s not that men don’t care what their women think/want. It’s that they care TOO MUCH about what their women think/want.
It’s not that men aren’t ready to hear what women say. It’s that when it comes to sex, women don’t say what they mean nor mean what they say. They DO what they mean; and mean what they DO.
Guys don’t convince girls to fuck them. Girls convince themselves into fucking particular guys. This applies to every girl I’ve ever known: she had her mind made up all on her own, and had her own reasons. Plus, a guy is never going to convince a girl to fuck him by talk talk talking. He has to demonstrate, be and do. If he does that, she’ll convince herself to fuck him.
September 4th, 2014 at 9:37 am
Deti: “When women seek to know the details of the process, they attempt to change the less palatable parts of the process, substitute “kinder, gentler” processes, and engraft on additional filler (some of it superfluous, some of it downright harmful). They also deny all of the foregoing.”
I think you’re right above, but it goes a bit further than that when we’re speaking of relationships as compared to (say) a forum and its departure from the message.
Here’s an example:
I know there was a time when my husband couldn’t speak in public, and he was very shy. I only know this because he has told me…he hasn’t been shy, to my knowedge, since I’ve known him. If I could project myself in a time machine and actually see him sweating and unable to speak, it would probably change the way I view him…I’d still love him, absolutely, but I’d feel more like his mother or friend than a passionate partner while watching that. I know, intellectually, that he wasn’t born confident and that he had to work on this aspect of himself just like everyone else…but I don’t really want to see it. I am actually attracted in a “passion” sense to the cocky fellow I know.
I used an example from a book the exact quote but it’s very much along the lines of what Rollo is speaking about here. The warrior has to go away for some mission, and his wife/lover cries and tells him to stay! But he says he loves her, but his mission is critical and too important to abandon. She cries, but feels secure in the fact that he’s his own man with a mission. On the flip side, the man turns to her and says, “I love you too much to go! I’ll stay!” She might be happy in the moment but there will be a part of her that trusts him less after that, and sees him differently (and not in a good way).
September 4th, 2014 at 9:39 am
On the flip side, if my husband went back in a time machine and saw me sweating and unable to speak in public (I have a pretty vivid memory of having to get up and do an equation on the board in the ninth grade, I think I was visibly shaking). He’d think it was absolutely precious. It would not inhibit his desire…it might actually intrigue him and increase his desire.
September 4th, 2014 at 10:06 am
Just thinking further…I actually do love looking at his baby pictures and pictures of him as a boy/home films so maybe the first bit isn’t true afterall. Hard to say.
September 4th, 2014 at 10:24 am
Liz,
Now that your his wife though, and he’s proven to you, it makes sense that you would love to look at his baby pictures. It’s really funny that you wrote of baby pictures, because I was not 10 minutes ago thinking about how men hate when their moms pull out their baby pictures and possibly why. But it makes perfect sense that they would hate that precisely because it does show part of the process. It shows the very beginning of it and it shows weakness. Not only the weakness of baby, but the weakness presented by the mom of “just how cute he was”.
Also, it’s pretty much a big fitness test on the mom’s part and on the girls part if she begs for them to be taken out and giggles over them in an attempt to embarrass him.
September 4th, 2014 at 10:32 am
Liz:
The point is, it’s quite difficult for women to watch the process of a boy becoming a man.
Speaking from personal experience, that process requires a breaking down, a separation from the “softer” sides of his nature, a break from his mother, and his venturing into the wilderness with his father and other trusted men. There, away from female eyes, he learns what he’s really made of. If he doesn’t have the “stuff”, then he is encouraged to keep going and learn it. He learns many things — his strengths, his limitations, his place in a hierarchy, the people in his life and how to love/respect them, and the things in his life and how to use/respect them. He becomes part of a tribe and is told to take his place in that tribe. He learns his privileges and his responsibilities as a member of the tribe.
He learns boundaries — his own, and others’. He learns what happens when he crosses boundaries; and learns to enforce his own. He decides how much he will put up with; and what he will eject from his life. He learns how to kick ass, how to take an ass-kicking, and how to get up after said ass-kicking.
The way it is supposed to be is that MEN teach him these things. Not his mom and dad. Not female teachers. Not other girls. In fact, his mom, and other girls, aren’t even supposed to be there. They aren’t supposed to see any of this. The boy has to go through some pain. There are tears. There is injury. There is loss. There are things engrafted onto and into him; and things which are cut out of him. There is a ripping open of the soul and spirit, a conditioning of the mind and body, that you aren’t supposed to be part of.
The reason you aren’t supposed to be there, watching this, is because you will want to protect him — you will want to spare him that pain and loss. You can’t. He’ll go through it now, or he’ll go through it later. He can go through it as a 14 year old in high school and complete it then. Or, he’ll go through it as a 35 year old divorced man while having to work a job and support kids.
September 4th, 2014 at 10:56 am
And as I think about it more, with certain exceptions of course, what I just wrote above is why men and women can’t talk about intersexual relationships in a candid and explicit way. Men have to go through this, and they have to do it with other men or alone.
A second thing is this – a large part of what you’re seeing in the manosphere is the work men have to do to become men. But instead of doing this in private, away from female eyes, they have to endure this process in full view of women who observe and sometimes participate. And their reactions range from curious to horrified. And that’s a reason why most women should simply be quarantined from the manosphere.
September 4th, 2014 at 11:04 am
“A second thing is this – a large part of what you’re seeing in the manosphere is the work men have to do to become men. But instead of doing this in private, away from female eyes, they have to endure this process in full view of women who observe and sometimes participate. And their reactions range from curious to horrified. And that’s a reason why most women should simply be quarantined from the manosphere.”
I think you’re right. I’ve considered this and it’s one reason I took a break for a couple of months a while back. I said it was because I think a woman in the sphere is a bit like getting drunk with your in-laws…never comfortable, but I think you’ve rather nailed it, and stated it far better and more clearly, above.
Which makes me a hypocrit, of course. I blame my OCD tendencies and desire to be around clever, interesting people (mostly male environments tend to be more interesting and clever than most).
September 4th, 2014 at 11:20 am
And also…I love men, and masculine things.
Not in a creepy way, or in a butch way, but a genuine heartfelt way.
Anyway…Interesting discussion. Time to clean up the house and think about working out. :-)
September 4th, 2014 at 11:32 am
Liz:
The danger, of course, is men just talking about the process, and not actually going through the process and doing the work.
September 4th, 2014 at 11:44 am
Women are interested in their perceptions of men, not the process they use to create those perceptions.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/05/23/perceptions/
September 4th, 2014 at 2:32 pm
You have to explain to me what perception of a man’s personality a woman assess to be ”decent” enough for her to bang him in the nightclub’s bathroom after talking to him for less than one minute. Personality means squat, sure she needs the guy to be a sucker if she wants to be in a relationship, but for bangs, most women don’t care about how she perceives him, or how other people perceive him, just as long as she’s aroused by him, and that’s when looks come into play.
Personality does not make a woman sexually aroused. Game tricks do not do work. Of course if the men competing are two twenty-five Brad Pitts, sure, I can see why a woman would need more to figure out which guy she is going to blow(or she can blow the two of them at the same time, who knows) but the vast majority of the men out there, including the PUas are average and trust me when I tell you that the retarded guy who can barely speak 2 words in his native language is definitely going to be having sex with women who are desirable without any effort.
now, for relationships.. A man doesn’t need ”Game.” He merely needs to have a wallet and the patience to put up with women. With how few men there are in college, a guy would need to look like quasimodo to not be able to find a relationship. But who wants relationships when we all know she put out for free to some other guy, amirite?
September 4th, 2014 at 2:38 pm
”A second thing is this – a large part of what you’re seeing in the manosphere is the work men have to do to become men. But instead of doing this in private, away from female eyes, they have to endure this process in full view of women who observe and sometimes participate. And their reactions range from curious to horrified. And that’s a reason why most women should simply be quarantined from the manosphere.”
To be a man one only needs to be born with male genitalia. There are no ”male club” a man joins when he loses his virginity. There are no Alpha male club one enters when he picks up a spear and kills a lion. A man is the guy who is comfortable in his skin. A man is the guy who doesn’t need approval from other guys(like I’d see 6’4” tall guys in college shame average-height men for being ”short”). A man is a guy who isn’t vagina-dependent, like so many seem to be.
Furthermore, a man is someone who has mastery over himself. Hell, I’d say that the Eunuchs from Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia and Ancient China were the mostly manly of all men. They had true power, the power over men, to create and to conquer and to expand. But to 21th-century, the measure of a man is how much women find him to be attractive. Hilarious. Sadly I am attracted to women, but I admire how the Ancient Greeks – the most manly of all men – saw women for the chattel that they were and only bothered with women for reproduction.
September 4th, 2014 at 2:49 pm
“But that doesn’t fit your misogyny does it? Tell your mother how much you hate women, Rollo. As far as I can tell you need to get back to her tit and start over cuz you missed something there.”
I told my mother what I thought of women, she replied that she did not like them much either.
Of course, she cleaned pigsties from 4 years on up, in post war Europe, so her sense of entitlement is, well, it has been beaten out of her?
By life, not this evil bastards endowed with a life penetration device.
PS: You do it without rubber boots, aka barefoot. especially in the summer.
PPS: I think some of my problems with women originated with my mother actually being one of the few grounded in reality.
I thought that was the norm.
Well……..
September 4th, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Quoting Rollo,
“Whether you’re Game-aware or not, every girl you engage with, whether a plate to spin or a monogamous potential mate, your role, your character, has all been crafted by the gestalt sum of the perceptions she’s built around you. Even from before the moment you approached her with romantic interest you’ve been progressively layered with her emotionally associative perceptions. Perhaps by friends, maybe social proof, or even pre-conditioned expectations (for better or worse) that she cast you into, your personality to her is the sum total of a strata of emotional perception. Later into an LTR (or even a fuck buddy situation) this perception becomes more solidified.”
I agree with the statement above however, I would go as far to say her perceptions of a mans character are preconceived before she has ever met him. She maintains a set of character traits from which she selects to apply to each man. Each trait is formed by her conditioning (her mommy, Disney, Hollywood, the feminist imperative….). Her set is simplistic, very limited and changes little over time regardless of what she is exposed to. She will sometimes say, “You can’t judge a book by its cover”. This statement provides false hope that she may actually be open to experience reality outside her solipsistic hypergamy. Do not fool yourself. She only returns to her set of trait perceptions (or misperceptions) and trades or applies another.
My sense of females perceptions of individual males is that females always and without exception stereotype men. The stereotypes are always shallow, simplistic and usually theatrically based. Women consistently refer to male characters in movies and on television when describing individual males they’ve met or know. They use terms such as “bad boy” and “nice guy” more commonly than not. They seem to have no other reference than these simplistic shallow (rather imbecilic) conceptions. Rarely if ever do they seem concerned with experiencing men with an open mind. Their descriptions are usually quite mindless. I have always been careful to avoid falling into any of their stereotype “pigeon holes”. I hate being labeled, it is insensitive a form of character assignation, objectification (and sociopathic if they are capable of more intelligent consideration). I thought for years they are callous because of this. Today, I think it is just how they are and they absolutely cannot appreciate men in any sort of empathetic way. They just do not get what is to be a man. Even the most bull dike lesbian feminist butch is not like a man, not even a wimpy man.
September 4th, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Women do not seem to be capable of critical abstract thought. No woman has ever thought up anything like the general theory of relativity, the universal physical law of gravitation, how to measure the distance from the earth to the sun without going there, how to harness electromagnetism, on and on and on and on and on……
Men’s brains are larger and posses an average of 400 million more brain cells than women’s….yet men are labeled quite often as “Neanderthal”. We commonly hear “cave man” as a shaming insult. Perhaps “cave woman” is far more appropriate.
September 4th, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Watch the video at the top of this post (and read the post too):
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/13/have-a-look/
This is what I mean by ‘perception'; the archetypes are already pre-established for women, but in the context of what Deti and Liz were discussing, women have little to no interest in how a man came to embody (or not) that archetype, and in fact are more likely to lose attraction/arousal for him when his process of coming to that perception is spelled out for her overtly.
September 4th, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Especially perhaps because they are far more sexually motivated to mate with the more reckless “alpha” ape like male. However, no one can argue the superior power of the intelligent males brain and it’s ability to create life improving and life saving items as well as highly destructive life ending devices including the atomic bomb. It’s probably wise to avoid pissing off the really smart. I think it was Bill Gates who told a Harvard Graduating class during a commencement speech…”Be nice to nerds, you will be working for one”.
September 4th, 2014 at 4:14 pm
Or it could be that the actual ruling class is not that concerned with the breeding behavior of the underclass…
September 4th, 2014 at 4:19 pm
……but we are all human.
September 4th, 2014 at 4:28 pm
September 4th, 2014 at 4:34 pm
http://www.lolhome.com/funny-picture-514030846.html
September 4th, 2014 at 5:24 pm
The Double Edge
Which do we wear
A veil or a mask
From the womb
To the cask
Worn by fear
Or for Pride
Hence either
Will surely divide
For innocent
Protection
Or deceptive
Projection
If we choose
From which side
Of the truth
We do hide
Then truths
Incision
Reveals
The division
For upon the edge
Balance the scales
Of justice
Sorted with tales
Yet the blade
Never dulls
The bearer
Ever culls
The honest
To be
Forever
Set free
September 4th, 2014 at 5:56 pm
An oldie but a goodie…
Sir Walter Scott circa 1800 AD
“Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive”
September 4th, 2014 at 6:11 pm
“I am the captain of this ship and I have my wife’s permission to say so”
Would he say so without his wife’s permission?
Did the wife allow or concede permission?
September 4th, 2014 at 10:20 pm
Holy shit is this a great article and thread. I’ll just comment on my life, thinking and experiences. But first…
@LivingFearless – You inspired me in a way that is hard to describe. I’m just starting a weight lifting program, and I’m dedicated to me in a way that is new, and at times actually uncomfortable. For me, overcoming the torpor, cynicism and the just giving up on my life after injury, sickness and career adversity and family insanity all came at me one after the other, has been nothing short of miraculous for me. I was beaten. It’s only the “Red Pill” that has had me get selfish again and given me the vitality and self-love to get off my ass and begin living life full out as I once did in my life. But your circumstances? Wow, to overcome all that – with a social system that was unsupportive?
Amazing, and worthy of note for sure. As an aside, it was during my greatest adversity that my daughter and two of my sisters that I’d been a father figure to just cut me loose and did not support me in the least bit. In fact they turned on me. But now I see this as a gift. They were never there for me in the way I was for them – I just didn’t know it. And if that all didn’t explode on me and send me into a year of agony, I never would have choked down the Red Pill. So now I thank them – and don’t spend a moment’s energy on them beyond anything that isn’t about me. As I explained to a beautiful young women I’m seeing, “I don’t do non-reciprocal relationships. Ass, cash or grass – nobody rides for free.” Funnily, she totally gets it and respects me for not being such a pushover. Selfish. I’m s selfish prick at times in fact – too bad, if you don’t like my frame get the fuck out of my life. I have plenty of takers for those who want to be around me, the rest are just whatever to me now. Sisters and fully raised daughters included. And oh yeah, it was my male friends and family who came through for me. I’m suddenly not loaded with cash and prizes and looking a little worse for wear- and boom, the ladies head for the hills.
But on to the truly mind-blowing shit here. So over the past couple of posts we’ve been talking about looks and I laid out my experiences with women that I couldn’t really explainfully by what was being offered here in some ways – lots of very high SMV women, but me only 5’8″ and not ripped. But I was very good looking – and it’s funny, another commenter, Professor Hardwig had to point it out to me – I just discounted all that. I mean, i was told I could be a model, or in a certain suit that I could be on the cover of GQ – but I never thought that’s what women were after. I was pulling dimes and I thought it was for other reasons. My whole life I had underestimated my SMV. No shocker, I was beaten like a bad puppy and suffered many abuses and losses in my young life, low self esteem seeps in when it’s screamed at you for a for your entire young life.
Rollo made a distinction in this post about guys who think it’s their Betaness that is what’s working, but it’s not. That’s exactly me – or was until the Red Pill – and the reason was that I believed women were “above” that kind of base desire. That sure, they got attracted to men, but women were somehow not the slobbering horndogs that I knew myself to be. Nice trick there from the ‘female imperative’, yes? Not only do I put women’s sexual natures up on a pedestal, no that’s not good enough – I also shame mine. So try and get this, I did that even though i was very attractive. Not quite in Rollo’s league (no women climbing in my window to fuck me) but sure, I’ve had sex in bars and cabs and on 5th avenue and had women do wild shit that embarrassed me for them. But I never understood it.
Now I’m at the other end. Due to aging and my physical plant going down the shitter, my smv plummetted and now I have a super low hitrate with women. I give myself the age excuse, but that’s bullshit. I’ve always had a boyish face and if I was in shape, at 52, I could pass for 40 no problem. I still get looks due to my face, but the pudge and sludge put them off. As I said, I’ve been making progress on this all year, and am now fit enough to take on weight lifting and really start amping it all up. But still, the attraction from women has waned. I used to call it “getting tone”. I noticed that women eyefucked me, but when I would put weight on (i cycled from close to fit to 20 lbs overweight for most of my life) I could see the eyefucking ceasing, and then losing the weight it would turn it back on. It was palpable.
I was unwilling to see what on another level I absolutely knew – women were operating on attraction. I mean, how could I have kept these ‘two sets of books’ in my own head? Answer: I was socially programmed by the culture of feminine imperative being baked into my socialization. It’s either on or it’s not, and you know it in your head, even if you don’t want to admit it to yourself. Our culture is drenched with it. And it’s all about preserving female dualistic mating strategies.
No more undervaluing myself. I’m so fucking lucky – i won a genetic lottery to be that attractive. How self-destructive has it been to wallow and let myself slide? I listen to some guys on here, virgins and not having sex their entire 20s and I realize that I’m throwing away a gift. Even 25 lbs overweight like I am now, I still get some looks. How did I not get how badly I’ve been playing this game?
Object lesson. A women who had declined my advances but became a legit friend (not friendzoned), back about 9 years ago, hadn’t seen me in about 4 months or so. In that time I’d amped up my workout and was training 6 days a week for a big back country trip I was doing in the Selkirk range up in BC. I was quite fit by the time the trip came, but the trip itself was alpine with lots of climbing mountains on skins or otherwise, and even though we were eating ridiculous amounts of calories I still lost 8 lbs on the trip.
I end up meeting her out, with some other friends after the trip, and she’s sees me and say’s, “Holy shit, Glenn, you look great.” Of course my response is “You should see me naked.”, lol. but we proceed to have a steamy encounter. She’s a headcase so it all went sideways but she went from liking but not being attracted to quite sexually turned on. Nothing changed but my level of fitness.
The best part of this for every man on this thread? We can all improve ourselves in many ways and can really do something about how we are positioned in this game. Some more than others, but if LiveFearlessly can do what he’s doing? Shame on any of us for being such fucking pussies that we won’t push ourselves 1/100th as hard as he must have had to.
September 5th, 2014 at 12:07 am
Nothing changed but my level of fitness.The best part of this for every man on this thread? We can all improve ourselves in many ways and can really do something about how we are positioned in this game. Some more than others, but if LiveFearlessly can do what he’s doing? Shame on any of us for being such fucking pussies that we won’t push ourselves 1/100th as hard as he must have had to.
F*cking right. Do it guys. Get cut and muscular = get sex. Its that easy!!
September 5th, 2014 at 2:05 am
I’ve started taking a lot more notice lately of my mental state when I go through periods of non gym-activity. For 10 years I’ve worked out inconsistently – 3 months maniac intensive till I look and feel good – then 1-2 months of complacency / laziness (and alcohol); self sabotaging to the point I gain bodyfat, get depressed and have to force myself to start it all over again.
A few things I’ve come to realise.
1. Regular workouts have positive effects for your mental state which is directly linked to your confidence. I can go from a very depressed state having not worked out for weeks, to being on top of the world in a matter of 2-3 workouts. With all those endorphins racing through my veins my confidence levels immediately go through the roof and I can see how that indirectly attracts more looks from women. I walk taller, through out laser eyes, generally approach more and become more cocky/funny etc
2. I’m certain that my laziness/complacency period normally starts about a week after I’m in a relationship with a new women. Looking back, I see how women instinctively & subtly sap your spare time and you tend to skip workouts to “hang out” with her. The paradigm shifts from working on yourself, to working on a relationship. My subconcious feeds me lines like “hey, you’ve landed the babe…now relaaaaax”
3. Working on your body (and by default, your mental state) must become like brushing your teeth, taking a shit or any other ‘must do’ in your normal daily routine. I’ve cut my workouts down to 30 min and firmly believe that every Man can spend at least 30 min on improving themselves and therefore, I have no pity for any guy crying about how buff dudes get the chicks.
4. Learn & internalise Game.
September 5th, 2014 at 3:37 am
The following post gets a bit more technical than all of my previous comments and it’s for good reason. For those not “scientifically inclined”, try to plow through and understand the beginning of my post. By the middle half towards the end of the post, it will all click and make sense to you.
Sexual selection and sexual attraction seem be based on beauty rather than utility, and explains the common observation in nature that it is the most beautiful that survive (J Biosci. 2004).
I’m going to try to explain this by also using the study above in many reference points.
There is a dynamic interaction between the mean number of new deleterious mutations per generation (Mg), the mean number of deleterious mutations in the genome of the population (Mp) and percentage zygote survival (Z). Increased Mg leads to increased Mp and a fall in Zs but it takes several generations before a new equilibrium is reached. If sexual attraction is influenced by the number of deleterious mutations in the genome of individuals then Mp is reduced and Zs increased for any given value of Mg. This fall in Y and rise in Z is more marked in polygamous than monogamous mating systems. And deleterious mutations can occur without any observable or measurable effect on function. Thus sexual selection, in this organism, for low levels of deleterious mutations cannot be based on assessment of performance. Instead, it is based on a simple symmetrical surface pattern that is flawlessly reproduced by organisms with no deleterious mutations, but is less than perfect, and therefore less attractive, if genetic systems have been deleted. A complex vital task requires a system with a high level of redundancy that acts so that the loss of one component has no observable effect and therefore cannot be used for sexual selection. The reproduction of a beautiful surface pattern also requires a low error, high redundancy genetic system; however, in this case there is advantage if a single deleterious mutation produces a recognizable change.
Furthermore, deleterious mutations interact synergistically causing impaired performance in individual systems and this leads to a positive correlation between the total number of deleterious mutations in the genome and impaired performance across the whole spectrum of biological capability. This includes performance in intellectual tasks, sporting ability, the ability to fight disease and preserve health and the development of a symmetrical physical form. Sexual reproduction distributes deleterious mutations unequally amongst zygotes and Z will correlate negatively with zygote mutational load. Rising environmental mutagenesis will lead to a rise in the human genomic mutational load and to decrease Z, although the full effect would take several
generations. So that a marked rise in environmental mutagenesis would lead to species extinction if mate choice were random, i.e., unrelated to the genomic mutational load. The biological imperfections caused by mutations, however, in health, intelligence and physical symmetry are all, to varying degrees, related to sexual attraction. Therefore if mates are chosen in response to sexual attraction the species can be maintained in the presence of high environmental mutagenesis.
Maybe the polyandric pattern that we see today, which women mate with a minority of males could have the most marked effect in reducing the number of deleterious mutations in the next generation.
When environmental mutagenesis falls, the number of eligible males would increase and a species would change from a polygamous to a monogamous pattern of mating. Therefore if sexual attraction is a force which counteracts genomic degradation this result would imply that women should not be attracted by good genes, but by a lack of bad genes. Humans should choose mates in a way that maximizes their reproductive success.
But what exactly is the optimal choice? Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly, there’s not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.
Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other nonresource-based mating systems, has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities.
Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms
September 5th, 2014 at 6:18 am
“However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.”
So, not every man needs to pair with a ten? And not every woman needs a millionaire? We can be happy with less????
;)
Nice comment.
September 5th, 2014 at 9:37 am
@ Siir – For the record, to me, this was one of your more cogent and accessible posts. But this isn’t an academic journal, it’s a place for guys to access non-pua/fucktard insight into intersexual dynamics, without the hatred of woman and not from the perspective of a loser in the mating game. As an aside, I believe this is what makes Rollo stand out from most purveyors of “game” – he’s not an angry loser who couldn’t get laid who turned dealing with that issue into a lifestyle.
Given the above I have a few questions/comments.
1. First, you are clearly an academic who studies these issues deeply. When you come to a site like this and participate, you should let people know your credentials. There are more than a few posers in the manosphere who throw cites around and quote/fact mine in order to sound “academic” but when you scratch the surface you find out that it’s BS. Without knowing who you are, for me, you initially came across as just another STEM sperg who was adopting the pose of an academic to defend his losses in the mating game by demonizing women and nature.
In one comment on this thread you suggested that sharing a bit about your life was somehow superfluous – but you forget this isn’t an academic journal. And when you are doing academic work/publishing/discussions, your standing in those communities is already known so even there you aren’t standing purely on the quality of your ideas. Reputation and background always matter, and you held them back here to your own detriment. If i was you I’d ask why you’d do that? If you are trying to “help” us poor dummies, you might have let us know what you quals were – without giving specific identifying information. And yeah, your relationships with women matter too. Just sayin’…
2. How do you see the other issues of attractiveness fitting into the science you lay out for us? I made one cite of some research showing other factors drive female mate selection on the last post but given your POV, I’m sure you are aware that there is research about how attractiveness from a woman’s eyes is more complex than just “beauty”. I remember you citing some studies that showed this was all due to response biases from study participants but I just don’t think that’s good enough. Are you saying that the consensus in the field is that all those studies are bunk? I would greatly appreciate an exegesis on that topic if you can muster the energy for it. NOTE: I’m not taking the position that it’s not all about looks, I just hear others in the field making those claims so I’m not sure how to digest it all.
3. How does the academic community studying human intersexual dynamics see the topic of “hypergamy”? I don’t see academics using this term and I note that you don’t either. Is it really just run away selection, resulting from different environmental conditions? Do academics even use the term ‘hypergamy’? How would you define it? Or criticize it?
I do appreciate the real effort you put in here.
September 5th, 2014 at 10:40 am
@ Kate – No, that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that the ‘beauty bias’ in mate selection has marginal or no payoffs in terms of fitness when above the median. Essentially, he’s saying that women’s sexual selection overemphasizes attractiveness wrt to optimizing genetic fitness in mate selection. None of that means that women “should” or even could be happy selecting less attractive mates, or that men would be either.
The combination of environmental changes and runaway selection explains all this. And the bottom line for men? You can’t change your basic phenotype in some real ways, but the things we can change are grooming, style, physical fitness (genetics are not the only factor here – any man can be fit and muscular), highlighting skills/talents we have, being socially dominant, maintaining frame etc.
The great news for those of us who “work it” is that we can get more than “our share” of mates if we want to. The more guys who go “MGTOW” has no effect on this, fyi, as they were never competition in the mating game to begin with. I think in some ways, MGTOW represents the most pathetic approach to all this in that these guys are like, “fine, I won’t be with women at all” – when women were uninterested in them to begin with. It’s an absurd extreme of making a virtue of necessity.
For me, since I’ve realized that in many real ways that I’m just an animal who’s been biologically programmed to want to fuck a lot of attractive women, this is good news. Perhaps other men are different – but for me sex is fundamental to who I am and my happiness. So I’m glad that I know what I’m doing now. Amused mastery and putting on muscle/working towards getting ripped puts me right back into the game. At 52, lol. Pretty cool. What woman can say that? I’m still getting young women at my age (as I’ve said my hit rate is very low and it’s real work due to my current SMV).
Men really have the upper hand here if they want to play to win, but sadly, most men are so caught up in being “Good guys” that women don’t really want to fuck that badly in the first place. I’ve had both kinds of sex – with a woman who’s wild for me and with a woman who was doing it to keep me around or saw me as a provider etc. I’ll take ‘Door Number 1′ every time.
September 5th, 2014 at 11:45 am
”Nothing changed but my level of fitness.The best part of this for every man on this thread? We can all improve ourselves in many ways and can really do something about how we are positioned in this game. Some more than others, but if LiveFearlessly can do what he’s doing? Shame on any of us for being such fucking pussies that we won’t push ourselves 1/100th as hard as he must have had to.
F*cking right. Do it guys. Get cut and muscular = get sex. Its that easy!!”
Not really. Them men who i witness getting the vast majority of the female attention are tall or their faces are handsome. Most of these tall guys are skinny as reed weeds. I’ve been all over Europe and I don’t really see that many buffed guys. Women don’t pay that much attention to average-height men with cut bodies, and if the guy is short they’ll say the guy has a bonaparte complex.
On the other hand, the few buffed guys I’ve know so far, have decent faces and aren’t short, but can only sleep with obese women. I suspect most of what these guys say they sleep with ,”hey bro, I only go for 8s and10’s which in Europe probably translates to a weak 5.
September 5th, 2014 at 11:49 am
”any man can be fit and muscular)”
Sure, every guy can look like a member of the 300’s cast. No. Gym owners claim anyone can have a buff body, but the thing is that there are several types of builds and only one build(mesomoprh) can get muscled easily. You can use drugs but way to get, destroy your health for some pussy. Then we have the skinny guys who can’t get muscles to save their lives.
Reminds me of what I see on reddit/redpill
brah brah, get an haircut, shave your face, and lift heavy bra, all the girls will want you brah. Then you visit the bodybuilders misc forum and you see all these greek gods who cant’ get laid even when the women are ugly or drunk. I know, they aren’t keeping Alpha male social dominant ear-to mouth ratio body posture, right? I wonder how these nail-polish Alphas would react if 5’5” Genghis Khan was in front of them, LOL.
September 5th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Rollo – “After reading articles like this from certified marriage counselors you’ll have to pardon my calling bullshit about any real need for more Beta sensitivity from men.”
Eggxactly!
September 5th, 2014 at 3:00 pm
This part right here: “So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” – because they shine her in the best light”
makes me think there is a definite tie-in to the “Nice Guys” TM snark definition feminists have of men who complain of being friend-zoned or who who complain of girls outright tricking the complainers into boyfriend level provisioning sans sex.
My thinking is like this: these women (feminist and otherwise) are fucking the drama kings.
When nice guys come along and complain that women’s choices in mates are just as base, cruel and mercenary as mens and challenges these women why they choose aholes who roll them for cash, cheat on them, and basically treat them miserably these women face a dilemma.
At some gut level they know these complaints ring true and realize that they (the women) must not be very good or healthy if what society says is the ideal mate (kind and respectful) they swat away and choose men who mistreat them. Who in their right mind seeks out mistreatment?
Rather than being an adult and saying: “yeah I choose drama kings, so what? What business is it of yours?” which would at least be honest, the Niceguys TM definition pushed by feminists positions the complaining friend-zoned niceguy as the “real” badguy.
It’s just mental masturbation. These feminists want to continue fucking who they want (which is fine) but then also claim they have the moral high ground in some way–which is utter horse shit.
September 5th, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Siirtyrion, September 5th, 2014 at 3:37 am
Excellent comment!
Do you have any references that discuss the processes that identify and connect the deletion of genetic systems to the reproduction of symmetrical surface patterns?
I have looked at processes from the perspective of Gerstein et al., “What is a gene, post-ENCODE – History and updated definition”, Genome Res. (2007), 17: 669-681. [ genome.cshlp[]org/content/17/6/669.full ]
.
“So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.”
This makes a lot of sense. Will there be a “Part 2″ to this comment?
.
.
Oops, since objective truth does not depend on authority, I almost forgot to include my credentials for sneaky * Glenn: I am nine feet tall, a most pleasing shade of sparkly azure, and my cock is the size of three beer cans stacked one on top of the other.
* “If you are trying to ‘help’ us poor dummies, you might have let us know what you quals were … ” [directed at Siirtyrion]
September 5th, 2014 at 5:28 pm
@Kate
I said no such thing. What I’m saying has already been said by Glenn in his first paragraph, so refer to his comment.
@Glenn
Science has direct ties into redpill thinking. The very notion of redpill is embedded into the sciences, and more specifically, those that cover sexual mating strategy on both sexes. You’ll only be limiting yourself by only acknowledging the “hearsay” notions on redpill thinking and not by taking into account any academic research on the topic which has already covered a bulk of intersexual relations.
I’ve never demonized women or nature. If that is the assumption you got from me, then that’s your problem and not mines. You must understand none of this is new to me. I’ve been in this field of study for many years and if anything, one can’ help but marvel at just how beautiful the fabric of human sexual relations truly is.
My posts and comments speak for themselves. I could understand it if I was trying to sell you something but that isn’t the case here. All the information I’ve given to you is free and it’s readily at your disposal. The information I post here is also backed by empirical data so honestly, what do I have to gain here?
This blog is an outlet for publishing redpill thoughts, which is precisely what I do. Again, whether you can accept this or not is ultimately up to you.
As for my area of expertise, I’ve already dropped many clues. I won’t give you any more than the following: I graduated from MIT with a PhD degree in Biology and currently, work in Developmental Biology.
You’re right, in some respect, to SOME of the complexities of attractiveness from a woman’s POV. But the most numerous, solid, and compelling form of data always points to one conclusion: Females will always PREFER a more aesthetically inclined man above every other trait, first and foremost.
A liable premise for this (other than the one I did above covering beauty) is females are simply choosier when it comes to mating. Female preferences by male mate phenotype are most correlated with greater variability of male mating success. One obvious implication of this, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice (ie. relieved of systemic constraint, which would otherwise limit their choices), female mate choices will always tend towards small male breeding populations. In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical, with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy. On the contrary, men find a wider range of female population within a suitable level of sexual attractiveness. Thus beauty, from a woman’s sexually predominate POV, follows a Pareto’s principle. An OkCupid study covered this by acknowledging that women rate 80% of men as unattractive.
The academic community doesn’t use the term “hypergamy” because it’s too simplistic in defining the varied selection that females place on their sexual strategy. I’ll explain below.
We know that females consider only two quantities of selective value in their mate choices: genetic benefits (physical attractiveness – optimized in high-rate short-term mating), and direct benefits (optimized in long term mating). Thus, long-term relationships (i.e. long term mating), and short term relationships are each just one of two TIME-VARIANT fitness strategies. Women have evolved to value long-term relationships because this implies direct-benefits (long term benefits with implications for paternal investment as the basis of selective value in long-term mating). But, they have also evolved to value short term relationships as this implies genetic benefits (genetic quality indicated in sensory biases fixed by evolutionary success, and subjectively assessed as physical attractiveness).
Since these two forms of benefits are rooted in evolutionary strategies with conflicting optima, females have evolved a further strategy to MINIMIZE the trade-off in receiving one benefit at the cost of another – something we know as strategic pluralism (Alpha Fucks-Beta Bucks): where females are mate specific in receiving independent benefits(they tend to mate with the most physically attractive males for their genetic benefits, and manipulate the less attractive, but more resourceful males(who are frequently duped into supporting the offspring of the former) for their direct benefits.
Note that it is only recently (in human history) that women have placed more emphasis on short term mating but this wasn’t what define hypergamy in the first place. In the past, hypergamy was a balance of the BEST PLURALISTIC strategy assessed by women (this is because both high ends of Alpha Fuck- Beta Bucks were hardly found in a single man).
Many scientists still go by this notion because it explains the frequent tradeoffs in mating and gives us a more complete picture for sexual selection as a whole. I understand that I uphold physicality as king, but understand that hypergamy isn’t completely about a short-term mating strategy, regardless of what some people may think. Women may be able to fund their our lives currently but rest assure, they still seek out Beta Bucks in other forms aside from monetary or material gain (i.e they still seek out physiological and emotional comfort from less than ideal males).
@eon:
I’ll look for those later since I cannot find them right now. Some studies in my library go unmarked, unfortunately.
More or less, yes. But that is for another day.
September 5th, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Prof. Von Hardwiggs writes
Sure, every guy can look like a member of the 300’s cast. No. Gym owners claim anyone can have a buff body, but the thing is that there are several types of builds and only one build(mesomoprh) can get muscled easily. You can use drugs but way to get, destroy your health for some pussy. Then we have the skinny guys who can’t get muscles to save their lives.
Actually, any guy that’s not completely paralyzed, or another severe extreme… can build a similar body.
But … most guys aren’t willing to do the work which includes the stuff outlined in “The Gerson Miracle” plus doing the other pain in the rear stuff to acquire pure food that’s organic, non GMO, raw (list is much longer). I’ll go with people to restaurants out of courtesy or necessity, but the people I have chosen to share my time with ‘get it’ that I don’t eat the food the restaurant serves.
Most guys seem to feel they need alcohol to enjoy themselves. Most of my friends know the harms of it and drink what I drink: Raw organic cold pressed juices made on the Norwalk 280. We don’t care about the taste. It’s about giving the body what it requires to be most ready each day to bring positive changes to global events. Clarity matters, and a fit body that’s excreting (not building up) most toxins many times daily is going to heal itself faster and make the man more driven, passionate. Victor Pride calls it Obsession!
Before the ‘hit and run’ driver changed my life, I have chosen to do free work for people I admire, and to reach out on common ground with people that are doing what makes life better on earth. Most of them, I thought, wouldn’t take my call. Thankfully, they usually do.
‘Gym owners’ claim…
I don’t go to those gyms. Equinox says it’s up to me, and they don’t call themselves a gym. They call themselves, “It’s not about fitness, it’s about life.” My trainer looks like a 5’7″ version of model/actor Jeff Kline. Both men were super skinny until they made the CHOICE to build the body they’d seen. They didn’t do it for (sex), they did it so they could be the best in the world at the work they are most passionate about. Neither had a handsome face before the change, chiseling the body (doing the work) changes the face too. They’re each with a “10” and the love is real.
Victor Pride says he was a skinny guy. He posts lots of photos to prove it. He’s authentic like Mike from Danger and Play. I call them roll models: http://livefearless.com/role-models/
The male hormones are harmful? The hit and run accident caused my make hormones to decline and the female hormone to overproduce. That caused a series of life threatening problems. Mike from D&P wrote in 2012 about how his doctor would approve supplementing estrogen, but not the male hormones. Cancer patients take medicine to reduce estrogen.
Victor and Mike not sick from doing the work to build those bodies.
The work is difficult. It’s extremely time consuming. It’s a complete change to most of how you spend the currency of time. There must be a higher purpose that excites and drives you with obsession because of what the changes will make you able to do. I know the why’s that makes being ripped and the healthiest body A MUST DO – no – other – option.
What’s your why?
September 5th, 2014 at 5:43 pm
The next time Aunt Giggles pops off about how AFBB is a red pill bubba meisah, I’m gonna cut & paste Siirtyrion into her Disqus comments.
September 5th, 2014 at 5:48 pm
@ Prof – I was going to respond at length but I’m headed to the gym, then out with some friends and then i’m rendezvousing with a 25 year old hottie who likes being a bad girl and having me be her secret bad habit. She actually likes dominating and teasing me – something I’ve never done but I say what the fuck? It’s a lot more fun than I thought – although I draw the line at denigration, and I always turn the tables at a certain point. The tussling and push/pull of it is crazily erotic. These younger women are insanely sexual. Nothing like my generation – and exactly what I’m looking for. She likes to strip for me and prance and dance around my living room in lingerie that she bought with Snoop Dogg on loud. Gosh, I’ve got to pull my head out of my ass one of these days.
What’s your evening look like?
P.S. – Thanks Rollo. Would not be happening if it weren’t for you.
September 5th, 2014 at 6:32 pm
@Siirtyrion, have a look at candidate #1
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/alpha-male-of-the-month-4/
Now answer me this, where is your
Godbiology now?Mwahahah!
September 5th, 2014 at 7:03 pm
@Prof Von Hardwiggs
the few buffed guys I’ve know so far
Most of the people I know are people I chose to know that are not only in the top percent in lean muscle mass to body fat ratio, they’ve mastery in a variety of other stuff that makes them able to be so generous and successful, with peaceful lives most people wish for. Most of them have someone that sincerely loves him.
The people I choose to know also have to find me someone they, too, can trust. It goes both ways. Nature is harsh. Healthy body fat/lean muscle mass numbers matter to the people that are the ones that change things. I didn’t make that rule. The process might be something like… “Did he do his best with what he’s got. If he didn’t,
why should I invest $1 million into his startup idea?
Why should I introduce him to that connection?
Why should I __________?”
Creating new habits in every aspect of life is difficult, and I’m thankful someone told me decades ago to pick up one new habit per month that matters to the purposes of my life.
Study the habits of the ultimate ideal… Someone you don’t know from the past or someone that’s living. Go all the way with those habits.
The habit of doing the work to have the best health condition has side effects: Improvements in every area of life.
September 5th, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Unfourtunately, the article writer does not talk about how a man’s FACE is almost 80-90% of a women’s sexual arousal. This means you are either born with it or not. Sure, you can get jacked.. but if you have an average face, attaining women will still be hard. Have a sexually attractive face = more women. If you have the height with this as well, its basically game over and you can fuck A SHIT ton of women.
FACE>>>>>Height>>>>>>body>>>>>>Everything else.
September 5th, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Rollo,
Common man.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/05/alpha-male-of-the-month-4/
You know that’s not for real/temporary
September 5th, 2014 at 9:15 pm
” . . .lingerie that she bought with Snoop Dogg . . .”
Layer.
September 6th, 2014 at 7:21 am
Looks real to me. She seems an impressive, accomplished lady.
http://mindiekniss.com
September 6th, 2014 at 11:18 am
I’ve been reading the OP–haven’t read all the comments. Sorry if I am reworking something already said.
But, it seems that this whole paradigm would not fit/have to be changed for Post-Menopausal women. Or, the paradigm is faulty because it cannot take account of what women are like in that phase of life. Thus, the theory or paradigm is not probative for women as a group, as it claims to be.
Now, my interest is not really academic. I live with a P-M woman. How is your Alpha/Beta, duality-in-hypergamy theory supposed to help me?
September 7th, 2014 at 12:20 am
Well it’s exactly the article I was referencing in this post, but it’s pretty close:
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/dear_prudence/2014/07/dear_prudence_video_finding_mr_right_too_soon.html
September 7th, 2014 at 10:31 am
FM
“Now, my interest is not really academic. I live with a P-M woman. How is your Alpha/Beta, duality-in-hypergamy theory supposed to help me?”
At menopause, all elements of the theory remain valid. But the relative importance of each changes. A woman will still be receptive to a man’s physical conditioning, his game, and his provisioning – if only to keep him on the reservation. And if she is faking her desire, so what?
Soft dread is your friend.
A couple grows old at the same rate, so be thankful that you are slowing down too!
September 7th, 2014 at 2:25 pm
LOL at you guys actually thinking muscles can override height. Height is the number one trait that is the most attractive to women. if you don’t have it, you can forget about juicing yourself up. It’s primal for women to want and adore a much taller man.
Have a look at this picture below:
You might say, “Oh, but that’s just one tinder slut! She doesn’t count!”
LOL, there’s many of these girls on there who explicitly state to not even bother if you’re not X height and above. funny thing is it’s usually their first sentence on there bio.
.
September 7th, 2014 at 2:44 pm
Many thanks for this last reply. Could you explain a bit more? Hey, and what do you mean that *I* am slowing down! :)
September 7th, 2014 at 4:05 pm
“Height is the number one trait that is the most attractive to women.”
I agree. Height (and face to a great extent) is not changeable without plastic surgery for the face which I am wary to suggest. Muscles are changeable, but especially a low body fat percentage is VERY changable.
I think Facelaw has it correct.
FACE (1st)>>>>>Height>>>>>>body(cut, muscles)>>>>>>Everything else.
September 8th, 2014 at 10:50 pm
FM
http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/13/soft-dread/
September 9th, 2014 at 3:40 am
One of the absolute fundamentals that a man needs is VALUE.
Game, in a way, is the effective application or leveraging of value.
Red Pill thinking is the realistic and pragmatic philosphy of game and it’s application to a man’s life.
The value of Value is that it leads to preselection.
We all know where value comes from or what gives a man value.
Looks/Physicality
Masculinity
Sexual prowess
Sexual Market Value.
Money/Job/The ability to earn and provide.
Status
Leadership
Dominance
Intelligence
Confidence (which usually comes from having all the above in place.)
One can “fake it until they make it” but not having to fake it makes it so much easier and natural.
….and so on and so forth.
Value is also often dependant on context.
A young man can by on looks and charm alone, an older man might do so in the short term but will be found wanting in the longer term as the expectations of him increase as he gets older.
September 9th, 2014 at 3:45 am
Correction on confidence. Not all of the above, but enough of the above.
Also, a man needs to be AWARE of his value.
It will often be questioned, challenged and attempts made to undermine it.
September 9th, 2014 at 8:28 am
@ SiirTyrrion – First off, thanks for the thoughtful response to my comment and queries. I also should apologize for not expressing myself clearly. I have no problem with scientifically framed commentary and careful, well reasoned, evidence based exegeses of these topics. In fact, I really appreciate it.
What I meant is you wrote in the style of an academic essay – when nobody else here does so. Interestingly, in some of your responses here you were much more conversational and less didactic – and much more effective. But I think the way I framed my comment seemed like I didn’t want to have great academic input/commentary here – nothing could be farther from the truth. I welcome the insights of a scientist in the field. I’ve been learning so much by reading/listening to actual scientists discuss these issues rather than the blather of PUAs, the misguided and futile activism of MRAs or the rage and sadness of MGTOWs. My only criticism was really about making your standing/creds clear and the accessibility of your approach, given the context here.
That said, the combo of Rollo’s piece and your comments have helped me finally put my questions about “hypergamy” to bed. I like to think of it as the primacy of women’s sexual strategies to their entire lives and how they seek to shape the culture to benefit them. It’s the trappings and outputs of their pluralistic strategies, which are hidden in plain view, that men have been lied to about since the moment of their births that interests me and I now understand it more completely.
Another question for you: Would you consider the entire manosphere to be largely a backlash by losers in the mating game? The internet presents the first large opportunity for such people to connect and have a voice – as we see many special interests doing. I made a comment earlier that “MGTOW” is ridiculous because it’s mostly guys who are losers in the mating game in the first place, so removing themselves is really just making a lifestyle out of failing with women. As an aside, I also think MGTOW keeps women as central to men’s thinking, whereas Alpha is really about being self-centered, dropping the gynocentric thinking/values and keeping women in their proper perspective. Any comments? Many in this “movement” seem to believe we are really going to change things – I think that’s ridiculous. We are but a tiny minority. Even if there were a million hard core “Red Pillers” on the planet, it would still be insignificant – and I think the numbers are much more like a couple of hundred thousand.
Better said, from a scientific perspective, how can/might/does a cultural phenomena like the Red Pill affect intersexual dynamics and strategies? For me, spitting the bit out of my mouth and being more about me in my relationships with women makes a huge difference, but in a way, i’m just playing the game as it is more effectively. I’m not trying to change anything – nor am I interested in doing so.
Again, thanks so much for your contributions here. It’s a credit to Rollo that he creates a space where real thinkers/scientists in the space can contribute.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:27 pm
September 9th, 2014 at 3:40 am
I don’t get it. In third world countries men sell themselves for a bucket of water. We in the western world have it made. Free clean water, great quality food(not my fault most men and women stuff themselves full), access to doctors, no threat of being mugged and raped if you don’t act stupid and amble to the seedy corner of your city. You don’t run the risk of getting your family murdered by the latest drug lord with dreams of becoming dicta.. I mean president.
So why all that effort to put your dick inside a vagina? Dude, what would happen if some chemist came up with a pill that provides as much pleasure as vagina can give, without the dangers of vagina-addiction, stds, crazy ex-boyfriends and so on? Men would still slave away because of that reproductive powah women have? Artificial wombs are coming, so are eggs. I understand that the desire to have sex is biological, i have that desire just as much as you all, but I think with my upper head. Everyday I’m surrounded by beautiful women(Europe). Every day I listen to some guy who is tired of dealing with said beautiful women.