The Mate Guarding topic of last week’s post made for some lively debate. It usually does because it’s this behavior, and the root motivators of it, that gets to the heart of dynamics such as an Alpha / Beta mindset, the Scarcity Mentality, Hypergamy, issues of morality and maybe an uncomfortable realization that your LTR has been subject to those motivators.
The purpose and approach men have with regard to mate guarding usually comes down to two positions.
The first being a moral high-ground idea that women do in fact have a moral or rational agency and thus have an obligation to keep their own Hypergamy in check. This may be from a religious perspective, but more often it’s based upon men’s idealistic equalist hopes that a woman can rationally be expected to parse her own investment in what men think should be Relational Equity.
Or in other words, women should know better, and be expected to cooperate with a male imperative by self-regulating their Hypergamous impulses as a matter of personal and social responsibility.
On a limbic level Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity and openly appealing to a woman’s reason, rationality or sense of responsibility a man believes she should be beholden to is counterproductive in influencing her genuine desires. However, this is usually a self-guided hope that women will recognize and regulate those behaviors at the risk of being socially ostracized in an already feminine-primary social environment.
Again, this can be couched in a religious expectation, but in a secular-equalist sense it amounts to putting the burden of mate guarding on women by presuming their ‘equal rationality’ will result in women mate guarding themselves by policing their own Hypergamy in men’s best interests. Anything less either makes them convictionless or the nebulous “low quality woman” who wont play by the old-order rules and expectations.
The second approach is a proactive mate guarding based on the presumption that mate guarding is a ‘defense’ against mate poaching by other, presumably (but not necessarily) more Alpha men than the one doing the guarding.
Within that context it’s understandable why men would want to protect their personal investment in a woman. What woman wouldn’t be aroused by the prospect of being fought over by two men she perceives as Alpha rivals? It’s a strong affirmation of her desirability and SMV.
Where it turns into a Beta Tell is when a man’s lifestyle revolves around ‘keeping’ her in a possessive sense for fear of losing her because she’s his only viable option for sending his genetic material into the future. That kind of mate guarding is the kind inspired by a scarcity mentality, but it’s also due to long evolved, subconscious sensitivities to her behavioral inconsistencies at or around her time of ovulation.
This is what Dr. Hasselton was getting into in her studies – ovulatory shift in mate preferences created an evolved sensitivity of them in men which in turn produced contingency behaviors (mate guarding) to ensure he wasn’t wasting his parental investment efforts with a child that wasn’t his own.
An evolved mate guarding sensitivity and contingent strategy was basically insurance against men’s cuckoldry risks.
I would argue that a contingent mate guarding strategy evolved not as a direct response to Alpha (or even Beta) competition stresses, but rather due to women’s innate Hypergamy, their sexual pluralism and the potential for parental investment deception when women were left with their Hypergamy unchecked.
If a woman’s predominant perception of you is Alpha, if her mental point of origin is one in which she recognizes her own SMV as being subordinate to your own, she wont be asking your “permission” to go to Vegas with her girlfriends for a weekend because her desire for her Alpha will be stronger than her peers influence on her during her ovulation week.
In theory, no woman who sees you as her perceived Alpha and Hypergamous best interest will want to ‘cheat’ on you – so the idea wont even occur to her. I realize this sounds simplistic until you consider the readiness with which most men will similarly isolate themselves socially, putting off friends and family in preference to spending his time with what he believes is a high-value woman.
Demonstrate, Never Explicate
From The 48 Laws of Power
Law 9
Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.
There is no greater demonstration of higher value for a man than walking away from a woman. Even a woman’s strongest perception of higher value cannot compete with the self-certainty of value a man has when he disconnects himself from a woman who’s already accepted him for her intimacy.
While Dread (even passive dread) is a strong signal of a man’s higher value, removing your own intimate acceptance from a woman and confirming the value her Hypergamous nature questioned about you is the last word in DHV.
For the first half of their lives, even the most mediocre of women become accustomed to men qualifying for their attention, intimacy and sexual access. Women quickly learn the utility of their first, best, agency with men – the power of sexual control.
So when that agency is proven useless with a man, that control is eliminated and she begins to question her capacity for that control. By removing himself from dependency on that agency he confirms that his SMV is more valuable than her own.
A lot of men report that their unprompted disinterest in sex with a woman, a wife, a girlfriend, often provokes a woman’s imagination with regard to her control and/or inspires a greater sexual determination to please him in order to reestablish this control when they next engage in sex.
There’s precious little that’s more effective at reestablishing Frame for a man than the demonstration of higher value walking away from a woman’s accepted intimacy represents. Some of the best sex you’ll have in your life will come after a reunited breakup.
Now, the reason I’ve detailed this is because the foundations of a man maintaining Frame within a relationship are rooted in limiting or removing this sexual agency and demonstrating higher value as part of that process.
Establishing Boundaries
London Towers on the SoSuave forum started a fairly contentious debate on how a man ought to establish boundaries within a relationship last week:
In my last LTR I never set boundaries, let her hang with her ex, guys, never got jealous, just didn’t give a fuck…because my life was going well and I had no insecurity she wouldn’t do anything because I was the shit. She even wanted her ex to hang with us, just so she could show me off. This actually seemed to work for me as I had some natural alpha state for the first 1 year due to life success and she could feel this, thus other guys were just orbiters. I would even joke to her about who she found attractive in the bar, that’s how self confident I was. This would actually make her want me more.
Then cracks in my game came out, I was going through a rough patch with life and suddenly the game shifted. She would start to compare me to other guys including her ex in a negative way. I suddenly became insecure because I didn’t feel Alpha anymore due to life not going well and suddenly started enforcing boundaries which she would constantly test because she knew I lost my game unlike when I was Alpha and didn’t give a shit. Enforcing boundaries was actually coming from an insecure place and I don’t think your words mean shit if you ain’t got your game tight.
Now, I’m not too sure how I would handle my next LTR. I’m in the process of becoming alpha again, but now truly alpha as in my inner game this time. But would I now still have the not give a sh1t attitude if my girl still hung out with her ex/guys?
Part of me thinks if my game is tight, I give her great sex, pluck at her emotional spectrum, she rides on the magic carpet of my exciting life (which comes from knowing my life mission) she will be hooked on me in a multiple of ways and if she knew I would drop her cold and can easily replace her if she doesn’t provide me with the affection/sex that I need.. she will enforce her own boundaries.
This is the only true boundary I can provide. A girls attention will drop if she starts even emotionally to involve someone else. At that point you just freeze immediately. So the only boundary you can ever enforce is through your attention and her subtle awareness you have options and will walk away with ease at the very beginning of her not providing for your needs. That loss is something she could not deal with.
I’d encourage readers to take the time to read through that discussion and the various approaches to establishing boundaries within a relationship (or even non-exclusive plates you may be spinning). After picking through the differing perspectives I made the connection between establishing boundaries and men’s natural predilection for mate guarding behaviors.
Most of the expressed perspectives tend to side with either of the two mate guarding approaches I mentioned at the beginning of today’s post; one, in which women are rationally expected to police their own Hypergamous impulses, and the other, where an active (and equally reasoned) explicating of boundaries are overtly declared as an ultimatum in an effort to protect a man against the parental investment risks of being cuckolded by a woman he knows can’t be expected not to otherwise succumb to her Hypergamous impulses.
If you notice how London Towers’ story unfolds here he essentially proceeded by demonstrating his higher value, secure in the confidence of it, only to have that DHV eroded due to his life’s circumstance.
This is when the boundary of Alpha indifference he’d organically set (albeit unknowingly), based upon his value, was challenged in his drop of status and esteem. I’ve elaborated in the past about a man’s burden of performance or how women’s concept of ‘love’ is based on a passive opportunism of what a man is (rather than who he is), but you get the picture illustrated for you here.
Next, commenter Soolaimon picks up the opposite end of the extreme:
These boundary guys have it ass backwards.
They are judging women by their words instead of judging them by their actions.
Judge women by their actions and not their words.
Agreeing to a boundary is only her words that these guys think will keep her from cheating.
Women who cut out other men from their lives on their own is a woman who understands what an exclusive relationship is.
Those are her actions you judge her on.
Not useless words she can go back on at any moment.
[…]
Smart classy intelligent women already know what exclusivity means they don’t need to have it defined when they are defining it for you by removing other men on their own.
Women do that for Alphas and not betas who need to set a boundary out of fear.
Women that are really into you will agree to what you want with no problem.
When they lose interest they will still cheat on you making your boundary useless.
If your woman knows what exclusivity means and has the same values as you why are you so terrified to put a ring on her finger and marry her?
There’s a lot to consider when you establish boundaries with a woman. Essentially those boundaries men wish to establish and have respected by a woman really just amount to a codified form of mate guarding.
When you think about it, this is what (at least in an old social order) the marriage contract was meant to insure from a male-beneficial perspective – an assurance of fidelity, but also a contractual insurance against Hypergamy.
Considering the contemporary risks involved, in the current social environment there are any number of reasons men are wary of marrying a woman, but what marriage has become is really a challenge to what a man believes about mate guarding and his confidence in controlling a woman’s Hypergamous nature based upon his degree of desirability to her.
Though I don’t disagree in principle, Soolaimon’s exaggeration is founded on the idea that there’s always going to be a bigger fish; another AMOG to seize your woman’s interest should your combination of Game, material and emotional provisioning, or ambition for such be lacking.
Like most absolutists, he does little to contextualize the preconceptions a woman may have with a particular man they’re already involved with. A woman may fantasize about sex with a more Alpha male during her ovulatory phase, but that doesn’t mean she has the opportunity to realize it – even for “smart classy independent women”.
That said, and after London Towers’ example, it’s impossible not to come to a conclusion that implied, demonstrated boundaries – ones that have actionable consequences of intimate and invested loss (i.e. Dread) – are preferable to explicated, but ultimately appealed-reason declarations of boundaries that are negotiated insurance policies to limit her Hypergamy.
While I do believe boundaries are a necessary part of a relationship, it’s far better for women to discover them for what they are, and the consequences of them, by demonstration rather than overt explanation.
The hand burned by the stove teaches better than any warning.
The only person who’s behavior you can control is your own, but that behavior can have a significant impact on the behaviors of others.
November 19th, 2014 at 1:56 am
I know the red pill is bitter…but this shit is so depressing ha. When does that red pill bitterness get better and how sheesh…
November 19th, 2014 at 4:58 am
@Will- keep at it. I no longer find it depressing, which is hard to believe considering it once was- very much so. I now find it oddly motivating and liberating. Rollo had a post a while ago about performance and for me it was the epiphany that freed me from that and changed my perspective.
You may not think it, but that sadness over women not being how we were taught they were supposed to be- the bitterness of the RP- is not a result of who you truly are, but who were conditioned to be by the FI.
Once you realize that it’s your betaness that made and makes you depressed, a weight lifts. I’m not saying just realizing that will automatically make you alpha, just that it will free you from the conditioning enough to see that those expectations are false ideals that in the end weren’t really yours to begin with, just implanted in you to keep you in service of the FI.
It’s not so much that the red pill is bitter, its just that once you swallow it, you start releasing the blue pill toxins. It’s like a hangover from the blue pills effects.
November 19th, 2014 at 8:48 am
I’ve been thinking about the sky diving thing
In over 6 years of military free fall operations, HALO and HAHO, we had one injury and that was at night, up high enough we were using oxygen.
My exposure to the extreme sports crowd was in Hawaii, and now that I think about the sky divers did the worst, but were also the type who couldn’t put it down. Their whole sense of self was tied up with it. They were also the most unfit. This was much less so with the rock climbers, surfers, motor cross guys and the dudes who hunted blue fin tuna in the open ocean with a spear and mask. I am also not speaking of some random dude who would catch a 4 foot wave when he could but men who were out there pushing things. These groups also had a higher injury rate with the crew I spear fished with losing a man.
Interesting though JF12 about the gorilla but I reckon that chest beating is a display of his potential for violence. He is showing his power and immunity to pain but I don’t know shit about gorillas
November 19th, 2014 at 9:03 am
Alpha and beta are relative concepts. Yes, there is a large SMV component here, but many women cheat with men that are of comparable or lower SMVs to their husbands. The issue comes down much more to dominance, and specifically to the TYPE OF DOMINANCE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE WOMAN. As much as the Red Pill informs key intersexual dynamics, there needs to be an acknowledgement that different women crave different types of dominance and that these cravings somewhat change as they age. Thus, a woman married to an frame-holding hedge fund manager may still go cheat with the poolboy, because his dominance may not be compatible with what she needs.
Hence, while the importance of holding frame cannot be overemphasized, one should also take a close look at his woman and see what kind of dominance her psychology requires. You can bet on most of her habits/wants changing over time, but her basic psychological toolkit (impulse control, social habits, family/external orientation) should stay reasonably intact. This is where SMV becomes less relevant and one has to think hard about what he wants in a life partner. Like it or not, the only way that a man can have a healthy marriage is if he is with a person who organically on the same emotional wavelength. Frame and SMV reinforce that dynamic in a healthy way, but will generally become irrelevant unless two people are genuinely connected.
November 19th, 2014 at 9:39 am
@ New Yorker
You’re just describing a woman’s physiology. It’s not about different types of dominance. See my blogpost about managing your relationship with your woman. It’s all about managing her mental chemistry. I’ve been through the fire and know whereof I speak.
November 19th, 2014 at 9:47 am
@ ton
IMO, the most dangerous beast is the leopard due to its quickness, strength, agility, and camouflage. It’s a quick silent killer. If we men try to emulate the leopard, women will fail to see our ability to inflict damage, since we camouflage it.
November 19th, 2014 at 9:52 am
For me, what it gets down to is manipulation pure and simple. I used to be the one being manipulated, now I’m the one doing the manipulating. Like Tinder, I’ve also been cheated on by the wife in the past (at least I believe so… no definite proof). All the mate guarding in the world wouldn’t have worked, and in fact I did mate guard hard. It just significantly lowered my SMV and made it even MORE likely that the cheating would occur.
I also was very in tune with her manipulation. I could recognize it immediately or very soon after the fact, but simply didn’t have any of the tools or skill set to effectively deal with it. Would go along with what she said she wanted to make her happy and then hate myself for doing it, because I could see with crystal clear precision the manipulation involved.
Interestingly, my mother was/is highly manipulative as well, so the blueprint for me was established very early. And that really gets to the “eureka” moment I’ve had after reading Rollo, Heartiste, etc. for the past 12 months:
AWALT! Consequently, the anger and disappointment has finally dissipated. It’s just the way they are. And I now approach the whole relationship dynamic clinically (almost as science) rather than emotionally.
But more importantly, I now have the skill set and tools to fight fire with fire. I simply manipulate back with a heavy dose of dread and nuke her manipulative shit tests with ease. So far it’s worked wonders. Wife is way more affectionate, sex substantially better and more frequent, she’s stopped being flirtatious with other men, etc.
Where I’ve still got lots of learning to do is in the calibration. I’ve gone from all beta/no alpha to the extreme opposite… all alpha/no beta. I’m convinced she suspects I’m cheating on her now, and I don’t do much to dissuade her from that belief. I’m extremely gun shy about giving her ANY beta, comfort, very aloof, etc. because it had such poor results in the past.
The big danger here is that I overplay my hand… She cheats again just to get “revenge.”
November 19th, 2014 at 10:45 am
“When you think about it, this is what (at least in an old social order) the marriage contract was meant to insure from a male-beneficial perspective – an assurance of fidelity, but also a contractual insurance against Hypergamy.”
I think this is the basis of western civilization. The productive betas can be assured of paternity and not having to constantly be worried about losing their wife to more charismatic, sexier non-productive alphas and therefore have an incentive to produce and have a stake in society. Given easy contraception/abortion and divorce, we are approaching a pre-civilized state of nature now. The black ghettos are already this way.
November 19th, 2014 at 11:19 am
lol yea Gamer a man shouldn’t be but so subtle on these things. I’m thinking of a friend of mine, literally the baddest mother fucker breathing(as rated in by his peers in my old outfit) but he is shy, shy, shy and therefore does poorly in the SMP. Otherwise there is no reason for his failures, but he’d rather get jerked off by rusty pliers then draw attention to himself
If you are in an ltr and out of balance the all alpha no beta is the way you want to tilt
November 19th, 2014 at 11:42 am
@Rollo
“I think a lot of more insecure guys like to rationalize mate guarding as protecting or guarding their mate from a subjectively more Alpha guy than themselves.”
So you’re saying you wouldn’t fend off an actual assault on your wife by another man. Not a sexual advance, but an actual assault where she was pulling herself out of it but couldn’t (men are, last check, stronger than women)?
Also, how does protecting others square with your sexual dynamics, when a man who would guard a woman against physical assault would also do the same for a small child or even an older/weaker man?
November 19th, 2014 at 11:54 am
Or were you directing that elsewhere? Looking at it now, that seems to be the case, it was just that your post was near mine so I thought it was directed towards me. Since I don’t advocate mate guarding (except dread and except as protection from actual assault), I’m probably mistaken.
November 19th, 2014 at 12:00 pm
@Will
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/29/a-new-hope/
November 19th, 2014 at 12:12 pm
Defending a woman against physical assault is an innate response in men when they see even a hint of hostility – even anonymous hostility – directed toward her.
In that respect I think the ‘protector’ dynamic in men that doesn’t exist in women.
http://therationalmale.com/2012/02/29/what-lies-beneath/
Is this mate guarding? I think so, but men’s first reaction is to protect a woman no matter whether he’s mated with her or not. Taken to it’s logical extreme you get White Knighting and The Savior Schema:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/26/the-savior-schema/
But again, is that mate guarding or defending the person or virtue of a woman he hopes will become a potential mate?
When I think of mate guarding it’s certainly not limited to the physical defense of a woman, but more so a man’s subconscious behaviors of limiting or restraining a woman’s hypergamous impulses.
November 19th, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Agree with you completely on the restraining hypergamous impulses.
Still not seeing it in protecting her from physical assault. If you care for a person, whether it’s your girl or your child or your father in a wheelchair, you’re going to protect them from physical assault if you have even a shred of a soul. That’s not beta/alpha/gamma, that’s just human decency in helping the weaker. Innate to men? Likely, yes, but not exclusively because of hypergamy. If I defend my aged father from a street thug, it’s not because I’m restraining my wife’s, or his, hypergamy (I know he doesn’t have it, it is a joke), heh.
Anonymous women though, dunno, maybe, but only in the same way I’d protect a child or another male from a mugging (I carry a sidearm). It’s a reaction against evil, injustice and the cowardly preying on the weak, not a sexual strategy is what I’m communicating.
Again though, I do agree completely when it comes to betas who jump in front of their dates when Joe Suave walks by.
November 19th, 2014 at 12:55 pm
When you defend your helpless father it’s not the same dynamic as mate guarding. You’re doing it from a position of kin affiliation, not to mention human decency (such as it is).
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/03/the-rush/
Listen to the radio show on this post. Even when this woman is caught, dead to rights, the first impulse most men have is to defend her – even as she cops to her infidelity and AFBB strategy.
Men want to defend women because we have an evolved sexual reciprocity schema that in the past was useful in our breeding efforts. Save the girl from harm to prove your quality and she’ll respond with sexual gratitude for it.
Is that mate guarding? No, but it is a guarding of a potential mate, and I think the majority of men are psychologically predisposed to it.
But again, not what I’m getting at here.
November 19th, 2014 at 1:10 pm
OT, just a quick poll, are you guys liking the weekend question type posts I’ve been doing for the last couple of weeks?
It hit me that a lot of readers are commenting over the weekend lately.
November 19th, 2014 at 1:39 pm
@TinderMaster
“Also, women aren’t driven by a desire to cheat just for the sake of it, they only do so when their hypergamy assesses that the man she’s with is of lower value. ”
I think that even that is a comforting fairy-tale. Just because a woman believes she is currently seeing an alpha man, or even the best man avaialble to her doesn’t rule out her cheating for reasons like:
Boredom
Spite
Variety
Drunkeness
Him being out of town
Flexing her empowerment
Validation
and many other things
No alpha Gris-Gris will truely protect you “when bitches get scandalous and full of voodoo”.
November 19th, 2014 at 1:56 pm
luv the weekend posts
Ariana Grande & The Weeknd:
“So what would I do if I can’t figure it out?
I’m gonna leave, leave, leave again”
November 19th, 2014 at 6:42 pm
re: weekend questions.
I like.
November 19th, 2014 at 7:59 pm
@ads gamer
What does women’s physiology have to do with individual personalities? One woman’s alpha is another woman’s bore. Alpha frame is about living your life the way that you want. You still have to choose a woman who wants to live in that world. Otherwise, she will cheat or leave. Basic stuff.
November 19th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
@newyorker- I like what you wrote above. I conforms with my experience which is why I said earlier that women will cheat on anybody, alpha or beta and yes, thoroughly enjoy it. Maybe crave was too strong a word for it, but not really. Once a woman changes her ideation of what she wants or needs, in that moment she will feel it. They are emotionally lead creatures, after all.
November 19th, 2014 at 10:33 pm
As per the weekend question.. I think it was great
November 19th, 2014 at 11:01 pm
@ New Yorker
What does women’s physiology have to do with individual personalities?
Obviously, if she’s already in a LTR with you, personalities has nothing to do with it. There’s no cheating or dominance-compatibility going on then.
I was objecting to your dominance-compatibility idea as an explanation for why women cheat.
Mostly it’s because they won’t mateguard themselves which in part comes from physiologically-based dissatisfaction (ethics play into this too, obviously–some women have none). Maybe not enough comfort or not getting drama when they need it.
November 19th, 2014 at 11:04 pm
I believe the opinion was voiced here before that gayness was largely or completely due to nurture. An article on newscientist points to genetic some genetic markers associated with being gay: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-largest-study-of-gay-brothers-homes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VG1nmo_2–M
November 19th, 2014 at 11:21 pm
Women mateguard themselves when they are being dominated in a way that is compatible with what they want. If they are with an alpha whose frame does not make them feel secure or loved then they will gradually stop mateguarding themselves. Like it or not, the woman has agency to the degree that her preference for domination styles can evolve over time. That is why it is very important to understand her underlying psychological profile, strengths, vulnerabilities, etc. so that one understands what she could become and want. There is no substitute for looking hard and asking the difficult questions. Alpha is a protection of your well-being and sanity irrespective of what a woman does…..but a woman can leave an Alpha without a problem….for a beta or another Alpha….depending on what she wants at the time.
November 19th, 2014 at 11:40 pm
Rollo this ties in nicely with your last piece (Point of Origin).
Why do some woman respond favorably to jealous/possessive alpha partners yet unfavorably to insecure/possesive beta ones?
Why do some woman seek security from beta orbiters when alphas don’t commit and seek excitement from alpha orbiters when betas give too much attention?
The difference is rooted in the point of origin of the man. The boundaries themselves are meaningless. What carries weight is if the woman believes those boundaries would hypothetically be ENFORCED by her man.
The insecure beta is always the one who ends up rationalizing a woman’s poor behavior and staying with her or taking her back when she slips up. She is already aware of this outcome as the beta subconsciously communicates it way beforehand. The woman with the alpha won’t even entertain the possibility of crossing boundaries because she knows what the result will be.
November 19th, 2014 at 11:50 pm
Boundaries are important insofar as they help a woman naturally keep herself bonded when she acknowledges you as her dominator of choice….but not if she has already decided that you are not the man for her.
Inasmuch as game and frame are important, the central message is really self-improvement, living for yoursef, and…..being yourself. This is where Rollo’s points of game internalization are lost on people. Game is not a tool. It is a state of mind which positions you as the central architect of all things in your life. As far as women are concerned, if an LTR is what a man wants (and let’s face it, even Alpha men want a committed lover…marriage is smth different) the face that the man presents needs to be genuine and clear. Then, one can see if a woman’s love is based on a real or fictitious frame. The more accurately one portrays himself to a woman, the less likely she will get buyer’s remorse down the line. If people were to be brutally honest with themselves, many Men make themselves look much stronger than they really are during the dating process…..and that is the worst thing that they can do.
November 20th, 2014 at 1:26 am
@ New Yorker
If they are with an alpha whose frame does not make them feel secure or loved
See, this is all nonsense. Do they need comfort or validation or tingles or drama? Then you give it to them. Frame is irrelevant. Did you even read my fakking post about it????
November 20th, 2014 at 1:29 am
@ New Yorker
Game is not a tool. It is a state of mind which positions you as the central architect of all things in your life
More nonsense. Game is Inner Frame (a masculine state of mind) and Outer Frame (the tools of sales).
November 20th, 2014 at 1:31 am
By the way, I’m not an armchair theorist. I prove my ideas in clubs and at home.
November 20th, 2014 at 8:16 am
DIYDDIYD. In any kind of any LTR with any degree of any sort of commitment, you have to put up some boundaries. Boundaries are in the definition of commitment, the same way that expectations are.
It used to be, in stories, that girls were said to flirt with other guys in order to force the hand of their boyfriend, to make him man up and commit i.e. so she would stop flirting with others. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually seen this behavior in the wild, although I suspect one or two girls might have doneit (not to me) because of the stories. As far as I know every time a girl flirted, it was either because she wanted to flirt and didn’t want her boyfriend to know, or it was prearranged and he wasn’t romantically jealous at all, like a pimp-whore type of arrangement.
November 20th, 2014 at 8:38 am
@ jf12
you have to put up some boundaries
Boundaries need to be understood. However, that doesn’t mean that the man should be in the role of imposing them on the woman. Better if the woman takes that job on herself.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:02 am
@ads gamer
No one is stealing your thunder…..but you do realize that inner frame + outer frame = being the architect of your life in every form?
November 20th, 2014 at 11:47 am
@ NewYorker
“No one is stealing your thunder”
Why should you think I’d worry about what you think?
but you do realize that inner frame + outer frame = being the architect of your life in every form?
Why don’t you stick with the point I was addressing–that you erred in saying that Game isn’t a tool? The tools of sales are very much a part of Game. Why won’t you admit your error? Why are you doing this reframing ego-dominance bullsh1t?
November 20th, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Game is something you internalize through dominance of every part of your life based on what you want out of it….everyone’s definition of dominance is different….plenty of tight-lipped strong, silent types doing very well in every sphere of life without worrying about sales tactics…..let me put it this way….you are a beta as long as you subconsciously think about anything other than dominating everything in your life….your relationship with your woman should only reflect your relationship to everything else….see, master, dominate, repeat….then, she can feel your implicit strength and naturally submit to a superior man who accurately represents who he is and lives his life freely….if you are “gaming” her without real wholesale improvements, then that strategy has a shelf life…
November 20th, 2014 at 12:44 pm
@new yorker
“you are a beta as long as you subconsciously think about anything other than dominating everything in your life”
You’ve gone round the bend. It is good to recognize sexual relationships function better with a dominant male. It is good to be aware that in many other areas of life ( like business ) dominance is very helpful, but hopefully you can go to the super-market without dominating the kid who bags your groceries.
November 20th, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Dominance is about self-control and always moving toward the life that you want to live whatever it may be. Has nothing to do with being a raging dickhead to people who work at checkout counters.
November 20th, 2014 at 3:14 pm
@ New Yorker, Water
Dominance is about telling/asking other people to do stuff or doing stuff to other people. Self-control is irrelevant.
November 20th, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Not a regular, and just found this site the other day. However, I have noticed something off in a lot of hypergamy/Game theory. That being that the woman has the higher sexual worth at a younger age based off of the hypergamy/rational hamster principles. I think this is why men have such a hard time swallowing the red pill. Here is my take on Hypergamy and a LTR. This is why the two points in a man’s favor on SMV is critical if a man wants a LTR.
From my vast observations of women, I have come to a conclusion that some of their talk is true but in a solipsist rational hamster way. In women minds, Men do truly hold the power. However, it is not really “Men” it is her idealization of her perfect “Man”. This purely fictional figment of her imagination is so powerful that a simple look will make her shiver in orgasmic pleasure. He embodies all desirable Alpha/Beta traits, but will some how be overwhelmed by her femminity that he will be dedicated to her; while at the same time maintaining all his awe-inspiring Alphaness that drives her carnal desires.
Obviously this is not normally possible for most men. Some Alpha and Beta traits are similar to Yin and Yang. They are two corresponding forces that are part of a whole. The mere expression of one of the traits precludes the ability to demonstrate the other trait simultaneously. The Alpha that she so desperately seeks will have spent a lifetime hedonistically cultivating this persona. The Beta she desperately needs will have spent a lifetime laboring towards the embodiment of dependability. A man which posses this ability to understand this ebb and flow, and realize it is impossible to be all things at one time is a master of the game. He truly is the Don Juan of any girls dreams. This man will instinctively recognize the contextual meaning behind women’s communication. His intuition will be so developed he will know which part of the Yin Yang conundrum she so desperately needs. However, this level of proficiency on a Man’s part essentially means all women are his oyster so desiring his pearl.
Hypergamy dictates women wish to trade up to this “Man”. Therefore their caffeinated hamster tells them all men have the power. Since there is a soulmate for everyone, thank Disney. However, the context reads her perfect MAN will own that woman’s soul. Therefore, any man that posses these traits will receive the benefit of a cracked out hamster and not just a caffeinated hamster. In her frame it would be better to be his 20th wife than be a lower man’s only wife. A taste of manna will sear that experience into a woman’s soul. She will happily toil and do her duties with the knowledge she will partake of her particular manna occasionally. Those moments of unadulterated hedonistic pleasure will give her the resolution and resolve to protect herself from losing her manna. Look to Alpha Widows, AFC, Alpha Fuck/ Beta Bucks for an understanding of this phenomenon.
So in the end the message is clear and so is the context. Women truly want that one perfect guy. This guy does truly have all the power and the women know this. That one perfect guy probably will never exist for a lifetime, he will eventually realize his true SMV. Seriously how many times do HB8-10’s throw themselves at men, and the man not go WTF? Therefore, if a woman finds a guy that understands the yin and yang he pretty much has a free pass to do as he wishes and she will remain faithful in spite of all transgressions. Hence, ALL MEN have ALL the power.
November 20th, 2014 at 6:40 pm
New Yorker: “Dominance is about self-control and always moving toward the life that you want to live whatever it may be. Has nothing to do with being a raging dickhead to people who work at checkout counters.”
theasdgamer: “Dominance is about telling/asking other people to do stuff or doing stuff to other people. Self-control is irrelevant.”
New Yorker has had valuable comments in this thread.
For a male, being a bully with a female mentality (self-control < cute shoes) works only until the first time he comes up against a serious man with the discipline to achieve self-control.
Also, domineering =/= dominant, and does not facilitate the female attraction and relationship stability of true dominance, which needs to have a real and solid basis, within the man.
True dominance and a lack of self-control are mutually exclusive, because true dominance is control.
"Dominance" without self-control is a parent having a screaming debate with a child in a toy store.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:05 pm
@JM, the concept you’re expressing is familiar and is called the apex fallacy.
You’re welcome.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:17 pm
The Chesterton Fence of nigh universal early marriage in lifelong monogamy having been already been torn down, there is nothing *real* that keeps the dog in his own yard. There is no shock collar, no invisible electrified fence. There is merely habit, merely guilt from half-remembered training and scolding, merely laziness from reliable mealtimes.
What, precisely, is stopping you? I know what is stopping me.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:27 pm
@Rollo re: arousal vs attraction discussion elsewhere. Deti correctly ‘splained that a man who is willing to have sex almost necessarily also (99.99% of the time) wants to have sex (it’s a hunger; being willing to eat dinner almost necessarily means you want to eat dinner).
A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from you.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:32 pm
jf12 – “A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from you.”
Seems a bit optimistic for me. More like should read:
A woman who is willing to have commitment from you almost necessarily also wants to have commitment from someone and you’ll do for now.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:34 pm
re: “There is no greater demonstration of higher value for a man than walking away from a woman.”
Yes, but it would then follow that hypergamy doesn’t care about commitment, or rather that actual commitment is *always* a display of lower value. Hence it is the *necessarily* false promise of commitment that women respond to, instead of the attaining of commitment.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:36 pm
@Badpainter, yes, but is also true that, nonoptimistically:
A man who is willing to have sex from a particular woman almost necessarily also wants to have sex from some woman and she’ll do for now.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:48 pm
Because I am such a top shelf beta, I never mate guarded. I made the too-common assumption that women’s experience of being in love was like men’s experience of being in love.
November 20th, 2014 at 10:49 pm
The reason rejection of a woman is DHV is because women are (or at least egoistically believe) the primary sexual selectors.
Even within commitment (and you presume that intimate acceptance necessarily means an implied exclusivity) hypergamy is still asking, doubting, a man’s real value in comparison to her own.
When a man is intimately accepted by a woman, and then has the temerity to later reject the woman’s acceptance, the act verifies his higher value to her hypergamous doubt – and, at least in the present, irrecoverably.
November 20th, 2014 at 11:26 pm
re: “Even within commitment … hypergamy is still asking, doubting, a man’s real value”
Ok, so does a beta’s commitment provide hypergamous supply, or not?
November 20th, 2014 at 11:32 pm
The Beta Bucks side of hypergamy, yes.
November 20th, 2014 at 11:48 pm
Sometimes I get confused thinking on the RP knowledge I’ve gained over last few years- wondering what it means in terms of my lifes choices, my future path and it’s effective application in the present to get me what I want.
And I get to thinking I must be dense, or something, to struggle as I do with it at times.
But then I come to this forum and read all the comments by very smart people, and I see the disagreements and the wide variations of interpretation, and I feel better.
This is more of an art than a science..In a way we all have to figure out the details for ourselves…So I’ve come to a much greater appreciation for Rollos policy of not writing prescriptions, but simply imparting information and leaving the rest in the hands of the readers.
I really appreciate the comments here as much as I do Rollos posts. Man I wish I had this twenty years ago when I could have really capitalized on it.
November 21st, 2014 at 12:56 am
Hobbes”I really appreciate the comments here as much as I do Rollos posts. Man I wish I had this twenty years ago when I could have really capitalized on it.”
Unless your 60+ or married your missing the point, and don’t want action. Men become the standard around 30+. The above quote is the exact self-depreciating attitude that would prevent you from picking up girls 20+ years younger. The inner-ego is what needs to be adjusted. I am not a PUA and have been married for years. However, I would suggest looking into dialectical behavior modification or mindfulness to truly adjust your inner beliefs of your inner-self.
I am a male nurse and can tell you that women act worse than men ever will. I have been directly propositioned many times, sexually harassed, flashed, groped, and objectified by my female co-workers many of which are in their early 20’s. One nurse actually was doing cheerleading moves like the bridge in front of me at the nursing station to show me her flexibility. Hell older women have called out 20 year olds in front of me, and their replies were it does not matter as I am married. While this is flattering, I am married and at that time was still readily partaking of the blue-pill.
Overall, I realize that I partook of the blue-pill to the point of insanity. Apparently, I have always been a natural alpha that was fucked up in my mind (Fuck divorce courts). My friends from high school told my wife this years later. That they would want to go out with me because I was a fucking chick magnate but would never act on all of the signs. They then would be able to “mack” as it was called in the day, and pick up all of those frustrated “honeys”.
My main point is this, sociology. The looking glass self: We are who we think you think we are. You will modify your behavior to correspond with your self-warped intuition of others opinion on your appearance/station in life. However, what is underneath is relatively static and will always come out in the end. Therefore, address the real reasons that the hypergamy is hard to swallow. It calls into question whether a man will ever be good enough to keep his woman, which is a bull-shit statement of epic proportions. The question is why the hell should anyone share their life with anyone. Women are taught and encouraged to believe the second statement. Men are still taught to believe the first statement. This is the inner-ego, and that my friends is a hard thing to change.
Currently, I am dealing with regaining myself as I am separated from my wife. My wife’s craziness attained new heights (no fidelity issues), she kicked me out, sought treatment for the first time in her life, and is now begging me to come back. I have refused to move back in until I am damn good and ready. My primary issue is changing a life-long learned feminist agenda, and becoming the man I was meant to be. Nursing school truly opened my eyes to women’s behavior and the extraordinarily impressive nature of the hamster. That little cute furry thing really does control women. Our brains are in the pants, theirs are on the wheel.
My prime example of how clueless women are is from my female sociology teacher (attractive, thin, petite, early 40’s) that I had in my early 30’s. I always wear the same clothes, but would allow my hair and beard to grow out when I felt lazy. Needless to say I look rather scruffy and not classically attractive during these periods. So after about 5 weeks of class I groomed up. I came to class sat in the same seat, and finally answered a question out loud after 20 minutes. At this point she realized I was the scruffy loser but cleaned up and classically attractive now. Her mind was fucking blown and she spent the next 20 minutes of class talking about me and the fact I cleaned up and how she did not even recognize me as the same person and the implications that holds with sociological theory. After that she would flirt with me anytime she saw me.
November 21st, 2014 at 1:26 am
@jf12
Looked into Apex theory and it seems slightly different. My main point difference is that Women recognize and submit readily to their version of the perfect guy. Hence, it is a true power differential for women IF they meet the “perfect” man at the right point in their lives.
As women are talking about potential mates when talking about suitors. The only men she is referring to are potential perfect men as she is entitled to a perfect man. Therefore this power differential always exist for any woman with any man she would deem worthy of dating. A woman will never “date” someone they believe is not worthy of this designation. Those guys are being used and dismissed by the caffeinated hamster while the hamster is justifying why the guy she is with can be that perfect man. Again it is in the context she is talking about HER men. Therefore all men have a power advantage in her mind.
November 21st, 2014 at 6:14 am
@ eon
I’m not saying that self-control is unimportant. It’s just irrelevant to dominance. And your comment about domineering is also irrelevant. There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.
November 21st, 2014 at 6:28 am
Field Report on mateguarding
I was dancing at the studio last night and saw beta mateguarding. I asked a 30-ish girl to dance twice in a row. Apparently she had some understanding/relationship with another guy and he looked put out when I turned her over to him. First time I asked her the other guy was standing nearby and he deferred to me.
November 21st, 2014 at 6:45 am
Self-control is the knowledge and ability to control your actions to accomplish whatever goals you want. What betas have is not self-control but a confidence crisis that prevents them from acting on their true desires and achieving their potential. Mastering martial arts requires significant self-control…….putting up with disrespect from your wife is just self-paralysis that betas reframe as self-control.
November 21st, 2014 at 6:57 am
@New Yorker
“Self-control is the knowledge and ability to control your actions to accomplish whatever goals you want”
Very well put, but it is missing an element. That element being a person that has self-control will also recognize the inherent challenges in those goals and be self-aware of the needed effort/plausibility of achieving those goals. Without this component the risk of Dark Triad is much higher. Which is not inherently a bad thing, but ignorantly embracing these traits would be an unhealthy choice.
November 21st, 2014 at 7:44 am
@tasdg, re: “There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.”
Yes there are. And I too think that the quasi-Buddhistic “dominate yourself!” advice is desperately flawed.
November 21st, 2014 at 8:09 am
what does self control have to do with pulling ass? It’s good for man to have but is neither here nor there in the SMP
all things are tools. Game is a tool. A hammer is a tool. A car is a tool. A gun is a tool. Diner is a tool. Everything in life is a tool or an objective
November 21st, 2014 at 8:27 am
@sfcton re: self-control
As you and I have agreed before, exhibiting irrational violence is a great tactic for scoring chicks. Women are specifically aroused by a man’s (apparent) lack of self-control when it comes to violence.
But I think it’s best to pretend to lack some self-control, to keep it to the minimal effective level.
November 21st, 2014 at 8:36 am
@ jf12, ton
I was beta last night. During the dance lesson while the instructor was talking and we weren’t dancing, I pulled out my Speiderco Delica folding knife to open a pack of gum and I gave a piece to my dance partner.
But I think it’s best to pretend to lack some self-control, to keep it to the minimal effective level.
I flayed that gum package, lol. Panties were dropping all over the dance floor.
(Stupid Wrigleys wraps their pack so tight with plastic that you can’t get a grip with your nails.)
November 21st, 2014 at 8:38 am
Oh, my knife has a black blade. Looks wicked.
November 21st, 2014 at 8:59 am
@tasdg re: knife.
My new ceramic pocket knife, best in the business for properly cleaving silica capillaries and optical fibers, unfortunately shows up in metal detectors so I can’t carry through like the older ones.
November 21st, 2014 at 10:31 am
Self-control is doing what you want to do unbound by outside influences. Has nothing to do with monastic devotion. Men who succeed in SMP lead life the way that they want it…..or at least show glimpses of that.
November 21st, 2014 at 11:23 am
agreed JF12…. when some local urban diversity tried to culturally enrich me I showed near uncontrollable rage etc yet everything was calculated for maxuim effect
November 21st, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Ton,
“what does self control have to do with pulling ass?”
Not much, and it can easily be counterproductive, since women are drawn to the opposite side of that spectrum, in that phase.
However, if it turns out to be more than a pump and dump, the dominance and leadership necessary for a stable long-term relationship also requires self-control, because a woman needs to follow a man who is above her.
A lack of self-control would bring him down to her level and induce a different response, just as a child will respond differently to a benevolent and calm, but firm, father, than to a self-absorbed, hysterical and inconsistent mother.
And the way that you have described managing your household is pretty much the opposite of throwing a hissy fit.
As far as a lack of self-control when it comes to violence, people like you do not need advice or guidance in this area, especially since you understand the difference between calculated rage, and actual rage that blinds you and makes you weaker or prone to impulsive acts against your best interests.
However, others who come here for advice would do well to avoid actually giving in to their emotions, because it can get out of hand with those who are weaker, and opponents love dealing with those who display, and then repeat, their weaknesses, almost on command.
November 21st, 2014 at 3:33 pm
@ theasdgamer
“I’m not saying that self-control is unimportant. It’s just irrelevant to dominance. And your comment about domineering is also irrelevant. There are plenty of self-controlled subservient betas out there.”
If you do not agree with my reply (above) to Ton, perhaps we are taking about different things.
What do you mean by “dominance” and “self-control”, and how would you establish dominance in a relationship?
Then, how would a lack of self-control enhance, or at least be neutral, with respect to dominance and leadership, in a relationship?
(New Yorker has already provided an excellent answer to the second part.)