Last week saw the publication of the latest paper by Dr. Steven W. Gangestad and Dr. Martie Hasselton titled Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science. Anyone who’s read the Rational Male for more than a year is probably familiar with my citing Dr. Hasselton in various posts (her catalog of research has been part of my sidebar links since I began RM), but both she and Dr. Gangstad are among the foremost notable researchers in the areas of human sexuality and applied evolutionary psychology. For this week’s post I’ll be riffing on what this paper proposes with regard to a condition of estrus in women.
In the introduction section of The Rational Male I relate a story of how in my Red Pill formative years I came to be a connector of dots so to speak. While I was studying behavioral psychology and personality studies a great many issues jumped out at me with regards to how many of the principle of behavioral psychology could be (and were already being) applied to intersexual relations. For instance, the basic concepts of intermittent reinforcement and behavioral modification seemed to me an obvious and learned practice of women in achieving some behavioral effect on men by periodically rewarding (reinforcing) them with sex ‘intermittently’. Operant conditioning and establishing operations also dovetailed seamlessly into the Red Pill concepts and awareness I’d been developing for several years prior to finishing my degree.
Since then the ideas I formed have naturally become more complex than these simple foundations, but what I only learned by error was how thoroughly disconnected both students and my teachers were with what I saw as obvious connections. I met obstinate resistance to flat denial when I wrote papers or gave a dissertation about the interplay between the foundations of behaviorism and interpersonal relationships. It was one thing to propose that men would use various aspects to their own advantage, but it was offensive to suggest that women would commonly use behavioral modification techniques to achieve their Hypergamous ends.
This peer resistance was especially adamant when I would suggest that women had a subconscious pre-knowledge (based on collective female experience) of these techniques. I never thought I had brass balls for broaching uncomfortable considerations like this – I honestly, and probably naively, assumed that what I was proposing had already been considered by academia long before I’d come to it.
I was actually introduced to the work of Dr. Hasselton during this time, and along with Dr. Warren Farrell, she’s gone on to become one of my go-to sources in respect to the connection between contemporary behavioral ‘dots’ with theories of practical evolved function in intersexual dynamics. I owe much of what I propose on Rational Male to this interplay, and while I doubt Hasselton would agree with all of what I or the manosphere propose, I have to credit her and her colleague’s work for providing me many of the dots I connect.
I understand that there are still evo-psych skeptics in the manosphere, but I find that much of what passes for their piecemeal “skepticism” is generally rooted in a desire to stubbornly cling to comforting Blue Pill idealisms. That said, I’d never ask any reader to take what I propose here on faith, but personally I’ve found that the questions proposed by evo-psych reflect many of the observations I had in my college days.
Hypergamous Duplicity
For the social theater of the Feminine Imperative, one of the more galling developments in psychological studies to come out of the past fifteen years has been the rise of evolutionary psychology. The natural pivot for the Imperative in dealing with evo-psych has been to write off any concept unflattering to the feminine as being speculative or proving a biased positive (by “misogynistic” researchers of course), while gladly endorsing and cherry-picking any and all evo-psych premises that reinforce the feminine or confirm a positive feminine-primacy.
Up until the past two years or so, there was a staunch resistance to the concept of Hypergamy (know as sexual pluralism in evo-psych) and the dual natures of women’s sexual strategy. Before then the idea of Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks was dismissed as biased, sociologically based and any biological implications or incentives for Hypergamy were downplayed as inconclusive by a feminine-centric media.
However the recent embrace of Open Hypergamy and “Sandbergism” of the last two years has set this narrative on its head, and the empowered women who found the idea of their own sexual pluralism so distasteful are now openly endorsing, if not proudly relishing, their roles in a new empowerment of Hypergamous duplicity.
Your Beta qualities are officially worthless to today’s women:
For those of you that aren’t aware, women now are often out earning men and more of them receive college degrees than men. As of now there aren’t really any programs to help guys out. Assuming this trend continues what do you think will happen to dating? I think that attractive women, will have their pick regardless.
However, for a lot of women, trying to lock down a guy in college will be more of a big deal. I don’t think hook up culture will disappear, but will definitely decrease.
With the exception with my current boyfriend, I have always earned more than any guy I have dated. It has never been an issue. I just don’t have to think about their financials, my attraction is based on their looks and personality. I am guessing the future will be more of that.
I thought this TRP subred was an interesting contrast to the Estrus theory proposed in the Gangstad-Hasselton paper (comments were good too). Yes, the woman is more than a bit gender-egotistical, and yes her triumphalism about the state of women in college and their earning is built on a foundation of sand, but lets strip this away for a moment. The greater importance to her in relating this, and every woman embracing open Hypergamy, is the prospect of better optimizing the dual nature of her sexual strategy.
In many a prior post I’ve detailed the rationales women will apply to their sexual pluralism and the social conventions they rely upon to keep men ignorant of them until such a time (or not) that they can best consolidate on that dualism. Where before that strategy was one of subtle manipulation and pretty lies to keep Betas-In-Waiting ready to be providers after the Alpha Fucks decline at 30, the strategy now is one of such utter ego-confidence in feminine social primacy that women gleefully declare “I’m not just gonna have my cake and eat it too, I’m getting mine with sprinkles and chocolate syrup” with regard to Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks.
The Estrus Connection
For all of the ubiquitous handwringing the manosphere imparts to the social implications of today’s Open Hypergamy, it’s important to consider the biological underpinnings that motivate this self-interested conceit.
From Human Estrus: Implications for Relationship Science:
In the vast majority of mammalian species, females experience classic estrus or heat: a discrete period of sexual receptivity – welcoming male advances – and proceptivity – actively seeking sex – confined to a few days just prior to ovulation, the fertile window. Only at this time, after all, do females require sex to conceive offspring. The primate order is exceptional. Although prosimians (e.g., lemurs, tarsiers) exhibit classic estrus, the vast majority of simian primates (monkeys and apes) are sexually active for at least several days outside of the fertile period [2]. Humans are an extreme case: Women may be sexually receptive or proceptive any time of the cycle, as well as other nonconceptive periods (e.g., pregnancy).
Do Women Retain a Functionally Distinct Fertile Phase?
Graded sexuality. Women’s sexual activity is not confined to an estrous period. But are women’s sexual interests truly constant across the cycle? Many female primates (e.g., rhesus macaques and marmosets) are often receptive to sexual advances by males outside of the fertile phase, but they initiate sex less [2].
In fact, women’s sexual interests do appear to change across the cycle. Women exhibit greater genital arousal in response to erotica and sexually condition to stimuli more readily during the follicular phase [5-8].
A recent study identified hormonal correlates of these changes by tracking 43 women over time and performing salivary hormone assays [9]. Women’s sexual desire was greater during the fertile window, and was positively related to estradiol levels (which peak just before ovulation), but negatively related to progesterone levels (which rise markedly during the luteal phase).
Changes in the male features that evoke sexual interest. Since the late 1990s, some researchers have argued that what changes most notably across the cycle is not sexual desire per se but, rather, the extent to which women’s sexual interests are evoked by particular male features – specifically, male behavioral and physical features associated with dominance, assertiveness, and developmental robustness. Over 50 studies have examined changes across the cycle in women’s attraction to these male features.
The importance of behavioral features? Whereas preference shifts of major interest early on concerned male physical features (e.g., facial masculinity; scent), several recent studies have focused on women’s reactions to men’s behavior and dispositions. Previous research had found that women find male confidence, even a degree of arrogance, more sexually appealing during the fertile phase [e.g., 15-16]. Recent studies replicate and extend that work, finding not only that fertile-phase women are more sexually attracted to “sexy cad” or behaviorally masculine men (relative to “good dad” or less masculine men), but also that, during the fertile phase, women are more likely to flirt or engage with such men [17,18]. Females of a variety of species, including primates [2], prefer dominant or high ranking males during the fertile phase of their cycles. These males may pass genetic benefits to offspring, as well as, potentially, offer material benefits (e.g., protect offspring). Women’s fertile-phase sexual attraction to behavioral dominance appears to have deep evolutionary roots.
Much of what’s explored here I laid out in Game terms in Your Friend Menstruation over two years ago, but the implications of the behaviors prompted by women’s menstrual cycle and biochemistry strongly imply an estrus-like predictability. This estrous state is a foundational keystone, not just to developing Game, but a keystone to understanding the dynamics behind Hypergamy, women’s dualistic sexual strategy, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, and can even be extrapolated into the drive for ensuring feminine social dominance in both overt and covert contexts.
When women embrace a social order founded upon a feminine state of openly revealed Hypergamy they confirm and expose the reality of this estrous state.
Whereas before, in a social order based on concealed Hypergamy, this state could be dismissed as a social construct (and a masculine biased one at that), or one that had only marginal influence to reasoning women with a “higher” human potential. No longer – the confirmation of a true estrus in women via open Hypergamy literally confirms virtually every elementary principle Game has asserted for the past 13 years.
Dual Sexuality
Within the dual sexuality framework, fertile-phase sexuality and non-fertile-phase sexuality possess potentially overlapping but also distinct functions [22,23]. In a number of primate species, extended sexuality – female receptivity and proceptivity at times other than the fertile phase – appears to function to confuse paternity by allowing non-dominant males sexual access [e.g., 24]. These males cannot rule out their own paternity, which might reduce their likelihood of harming a female’s offspring. In humans, by contrast, extended sexuality may function to induce primary pair-bond partners to invest in women and offspring [e.g., 22].
I found this part particularly interesting when you contrast this dynamic with the social resistance that standardized paternity testing has been met with. In a feminine-primary social order based on open Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative can’t afford not to legislate a mandated cuckoldry. If Beta provider males will not comply with the insurance of a woman’s long-term security (as a result of being made aware of his place in Open Hypergamy) then he must be forced to comply either legally, socially or both. The old order exchange of resources for sexual access and a reasonable assurance of his paternity is replaced by a socialized form of cuckoldry.
Some studies have found that women’s sexual interests in men other than partners are strikingly rare during the luteal phase, relative to the fertile phase [25,26]. Other research has found moderating effects; for example, women who perceive their partners to lack sex appeal experience increased attraction to men other than partners, less satisfaction, and a more critical attitude toward partners, but only when fertile [27,28]. Fertile-phase women in one study were more assertive and focused on their own, as opposed to their partner’s, needs, especially when attracted to men other than partners during that phase [29].
Most research on cycle shifts has been inspired by theory concerning women’s distinctive sexual interests during the fertile phase. One study explicitly sought to understand factors influencing women’s sexual interests during the luteal phase, finding that, at that time, but not during the fertile phase, women initiated sex more with primary partners when they were invested in their relationship more than were male partners [30]. This pattern is consistent with the proposal that extended sexuality functions, in part, to encourage interest from valued male partners. Others have proposed that women’s estrus phase has been modified by pair-bonding.
Initiating sex or being receptive to a primary partner’s sexual interest during the luteal phase (the Beta swing of the cycle) follows when we consider that a woman being sexual during this phase poses the least potential of becoming pregnant while simultaneously (rewarding) reinforcing that primary partner’s continued investment in the pairing with sex (intermittent reinforcement). This is a very important dynamic because it mirrors a larger theme in women’s socio-sexual pluralism – it’s Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks on a biological scale.
Compare this intra-relationship predisposition for Beta sex and contrast it with the larger dynamic of open Hypergamy Alpha Fucks during a woman’s prime fertility window in her peak SMV years, and her post Epiphany Phase necessity to retain a comforting (but decidedly less sexually exciting) Beta provider.
Women’s sexual strategy on a social scale, mirrors her instinctual, estrous sexual strategy on an individual scale.
Cues of Fertility Status
Females across diverse species undergo physical and behavioral changes during estrus that males find attractive: changes in body scents in carnivores, rodents, and some primates; changes in appearance, such as sexual swellings, in baboons and chimpanzees; changes in solicitous behavior in rodents and many primates [2,31] Because women lack obvious cyclic changes, it was widely assumed that cycle shifts in attractiveness were eliminated in humans, perhaps with the evolution of
pair bonding [32].In 1975, a pioneering study documented increased attractiveness of women’s vaginal odors midcycle [33]. A quarter century later, research revealing other detectable fertile-phase changes began to accumulate, including increased attractiveness of women’s upper torso odors, increased vocal pitch and attractiveness, and changes in women’s style of dress and solicitous behaviors [34]. Meta-analysis of this literature confirms that changes across the cycle in women’s attractiveness are
often subtle, but robust (K. Gildersleeve, PhD dissertation, UCLA, 2014).A notable recent study demonstrated that hormones implicated in attractiveness shifts in non-humans also predict attractiveness shifts in humans [35]. Photos, audio clips, and salivary estrogen and progesterone were collected from 202 women at two cycle points. Men rated women’s facial and vocal attractiveness highest when women’s progesterone levels were low and estrogen levels high (characteristic of the follicular phase, and especially the fertile window).
Emerging evidence suggests that these changes affect interactions between males and females. During the fertile window, women report increased jealous behavior by male partners [25,29,36]. A possible mediator of such changes – testosterone – is higher in men after they smell tshirts collected from women on high- than on low-fertility days of the cycle [37; cf. 38]. A recent study examined related phenomena in established relationships by bringing couples into the lab for a close interaction task (e.g., slow dancing) [39]. Following the interaction, male partners viewed images of men who were attractive and described as competitive or unattractive and noncompetitive. Only men in the competitive condition showed increases in testosterone from baseline – and only when tested during their partner’s fertile phase.
What remains less clear is how we can understand shifts in attractiveness from a theoretical perspective. It is unlikely that women evolved to signal their fertility within the cycle to men [22,34]. In fact, the opposite may have occurred – active selection on women to conceal cues of ovulation, which could help to explain weak shifts in attractiveness relative to many species. Concealment might have promoted extended sexuality with its attendant benefits from investing males, or
facilitated women’s extra-pair mating. Possibly, the subtle physical changes that occur are merely “leaky cues” that persist because fully concealing them suppresses hormone levels in ways that compromise fertility. Behavioral shifts, by contrast, may be tied to increases in women’s sexual interests or motivation to compete with other women for desirable mates [e.g., 40].
Usually after first-time readers have a chance to digest the material I propose in Your Friend Menstruation the first frustration they have is figuring out just how they can ever reliably detect when a woman is in this estrous state. On an instinctual level, most men are already sensitive to these socio-sexual cues, but this presumptuousness of sexual availability is rigorously conditioned out of men by social influence. In other words, most guys are Beta-taught to be ashamed of presuming a woman might be down to fuck as the result of picking up on visual, vocal or body posture cues.
Beyond this perceptiveness, there are also pheromonal triggers as well as behavioral cues during estrus that prompt a mate guarding response in men.
I would however propose that the evolved concealment of an estrus-like state and all of the attendant behaviors that coincide with it are a behavioral mechanic with the purpose of filtering for men with a dominant Alpha capacity to “Just Get It” that a woman is in estrus and thus qualify for her sexual access either proceptively or receptively. Women’s concealed estrus is an evolved aspect of filtering for Alpha Fucks.
In addition, this concealment also aids in determining Beta Bucks for the men she needs (needed) to exchange her sexual access for. A guy who “doesn’t get it” is still useful (or used to be) precisely because he doesn’t understand the dynamics of her cyclic and dualistic sexual strategy. Her seemingly erratic and self-controlled sexual availability becomes the Beta Bucks interest’s intermittent reinforcement for the desired behavior of his parental investment in children that are only indeterminately of his genetic heritage.
Evidence of this intermittent reinforcement can also be observed in what Athol Kay from Married Man Sex Life has described as wives “drip feeding” sex to their husbands. The confines of a committed monogamy in no way preclude the psycho-sexual influences of estrus. Thus placating a less ‘sexy’, but parentally invested man with the reinforcer of infrequent (but not entirely absent) sex becomes a necessity to facilitate the prospect of a future sexual experience with an Alpha while ensuring the security of her Beta.
In closing here I think the importance of how this estrous state influences women on both an individual and social level can’t be stressed enough in contrast to the social embrace of open Hypergamy. The Hypergamy genie is not only out of the bottle, but women are, perhaps against their own interests, embracing the genie with gusto.
Just today Vox posted a quick hit article about how men are discovering that pornography is now preferable to relating with the average woman. In an era of open Hypergamy I don’t believe this is a rationalized preference so much as it’s simply a pragmatic one. Men are rapidly awakening to a Red Pill awareness, even without a formal Red Pill education, and seeing the rewards (the intermittent reinforcement) simply aren’t worth the investment with women who blithely express their expectations of them to assume the role they would have them play in their sexual strategies.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:03 am
@glenn. I agree with your central question. As for a beta 5, in the past he would have a far easier time being appreciated for provider qualities and “rewarded” with a woman and social status through marriage, no doubt. For civilization to continue undisturbed, that’s enough.
But I would guess that his satisfaction with his marriage and women was low– though maybe not as low as his modern equivalen– just because he was a beta 5, lacking game or alpha traits, lacking understanding that he will always need to perform (per RM’s recent post). You can see a good example of this in 19th century novel like Madame Bovary, in which a higher SMV, af-chasing wife implodes her marriage to a dutiful beta 5 doctor, long before no-fault divorce or cultural feminism.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:07 am
“I fuck her once, forget her
Your bitch choosin’, just let her
She choosin’ this whole life”
This whole song is a great lesson.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:11 am
Trugingstar’s comment is a prime example of why we need masculinity. I feel bad for her, she has nothing stable to brace herself against.
Gentlemen, understand this: if your woman ever goes off like this, it’s a sign that you haven’t provided her with a sufficiently strong masculine frame. Beta frame hurts women too.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:32 am
@jack
“but Love exists right?”
yes Love exists! You can love a woman unconditionally and she can love you conditionally.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:22 am
@Jack, yes, but not in the Blue Pill context you’d ideally hope it exists in.
What does “without bullshit” mean to you?
http://therationalmale.com/2014/09/29/a-new-hope/
The key to living in a red pill context is to unlearn your blue pill expectations and dreams of finding contentment in them, and replace them with expectations and aspirations based on realistic understandings of red pill truths.
Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:31 am
@ All – I will attempt to be nicer. But in this instance, I have a simple question for you all. Are you on the same page with “women are all cheating, lying whores” and with bitchslapping them? While the video is an example of retaliation to aggression, which I have no problem with – that’s not what Minter is saying. It’s not white knighting, it’s about not being a lowlife. Tell me guys, is this who you are?
@ M. Simon – Not dignifying the ridiculous, ahistorical “Islamism is Nazism” stuff with an answer. Don’t want to argue (you see, I’m nicer already!) and it doesn’t belong here either. So, lets move on, I have.
Back to substance. Let me make clear that I was not suggesting we hold women personally “accountable” for their choices vis a vis sexual selection. I was asking how they account for the power of sexual selection in their feminist ideology? How do they account for the fact that women prefer to breed with men who exude the exact masculine traits they say are problematic? How does Patriarchy account for the massive power women have wrt sexual selection?
Let’s also make a couple of things clear about humanity:
1. Lying – Humans lie all the time – men and women. In fact, one could say that much of our linguistic and social skills are about becoming artful at different levels of deception. Claiming that women are uniquely dishonest is silly. I mean, are men not deceptive about their sexual strategies? Really? Back when I was a drinker and in the bars a lot, I figured out one way to get laid was to make the woman believe you are falling in love with her – that night. It’s not easy to do, hint, the secret is to get her to see it, not to say it. Women want a fantasy, this is the mother of all fantasies and it works. But it’s really hard to pull off. It’s a 5-6 hour gambit and you have to really draw her into your world and do what I call the ‘reverse sell’ to amp up her desire. The “close” is just all faux vulnerability, fyi. What, is that nice of me? How many men have professed love just to get laid? Or cheated on women who were good to them? Only now, women’s rates of infidelity are approaching that of men’s. We have no real room to complain about women’s unique dishonesty.
2. Biology, instinct, culture and behavior – For those who don’t understand the degree to which humans are puppets on a string, I direct you to Sam Harris’s dissection of the mythology of “free will”, here’s a link to a great lecture he gave on the subject http://youtu.be/_FanhvXO9Pk We are all acting in any given moment at the effect of many drivers, and our “rational mind” is merely one of them. As well, humans are rarely capable of pure rationality in the first place, but rather mostly engage in “motivated reasoning”.
To believe that women are consciously making choices about who they like to fuck is ridiculous. It’s like blaming me for being horny or waking up with morning wood or finding a 15 year old very hot. Of course, the politics of feminism are separate from women’s personal sexual strategies and motivations, but that is a separate issue.
To expect women to change their personal sexual appetites strikes me as quite strange. Remember, it’s not the FI that has changed, it’s the ecology around it. And the only “change” you can implement through activism is political, not personal, hence why M. Simon is hectoring us about that. You can’t have a political campaign that tells women, “Fuck your beta like he’s an alpha, he deserves it!”. But we could push for mandatory paternity testing at birth or eliminate no-fault divorce as he suggests as a way to change the ecology.
I’m intentionally not interested in political change because I think we’ve already lost the war. But he’s correct that it’s the only way to change the bizarre incentives that exist in the social welfare system and via Title IX and VAWA and rape laws and domestic violence enforcement and the family courts etc. But I only want to be happy and politics never makes me happy – I don’t give a fuck about the larger world anymore. That’s what the Red Pill did to me, it gave me permission to be selfish. It’s not noble, but I tried to be noble for 50 years – nobody gives a shit. You get laughed at and played and denigrated for it. Okay, message received.
I also don’t think that women’s participation in the workforce and economic empowerment is going to be rolled back, nor will birth control. As someone pointed out above, we can’t “go back”. A pickle will never be a cucumber again. I don’t think Christianity will make a comeback. The only thing I think could change all of this radically is if we had a true “Road Warrior” kind of post industrial apocalypitcal world where the rule of the strong man again returned. Male protection and provision will be worth a lot more in such a world, but we’ll also be hacking each other to pieces over it all so that’s nothing for men to look forward to.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:38 am
forgethesky – “Gentlemen, understand this: if your woman ever goes off like this, it’s a sign that you haven’t provided her with a sufficiently strong masculine frame. Beta frame hurts women too.”
Because it is always the man’s fault. ALWAYS. THE. MAN’S. FAULT.
Speaking only for myself I was trained to accept that everything is my fault by virtue of my existance. At this point I no longer give much of damn how my actions or inactions effect others. It might be my fault, but it’s not my problem.
December 19th, 2014 at 11:47 am
This comment will be off topic for this week’s post, but I just stumbled across an article as a FSU fan that was terribly bothersome to me.
http://raleighco.com/writing/rooting-against-fsu-fix-jameis-winston/
The Jameis case has always been interesting to me from a red-pill perspective but that is not really my concern here. My problem with the article is the female writer assuming that we live in a culture of rape and cover ups. She threw around the stat that 97% of rapists don’t spend a day in jail…. horse shit.
On a deeper level and even before swallowing the red pill, accusations of rape always disturbed me. I never understood how rape could physically happen. Unless a man were to knock a woman unconscious, have an EXTREME size advantage, or drug her, I don’t understand how a man could force a woman to have sex with her. (Of course, these things do happen occasionally and I am not including statutory rape or child molestation, those are different issues of social pressure.) And i often wondered how many men who were convicted of rape actually forced a woman to have sex with him against her will.
Anyway, besides those on this blog, I was wondering if anyone knows of articles or books that deal with the culture of rape? The articles could be about the court system, psychological state of the victims/accused perpetrators, or even at what point in time America became so damn rape sensitive. Thanks.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:05 pm
@ A Woman – The endorphin hit a man gets from an orgasm is about the same as you get from a shot of heroin. In our prime, we have 20 times the testosterone women have. It’s not crazy to see men as organisms biologically programmed to want to fuck attractive women. The rub is that we are all programmed to want the same high SMV women, and society tells us via oneitis, romance, chivalry etc that the “good guy” will win out and get his dream girl some day. That he should just be a good person and hold out for “the one”. And then “the one” turns out to be an alpha cock carousel rider who “settled for you” but never mentioned it. And while in the past, she would deep throat a guy to the point of gagging, and do a strip tease in hot lingerie without being asked, she now “doesn’t really like to give blowjobs, it’s kind of degrading” and kind of finds g-strings uncomfortable – that’s “the one” that the Betas end up with. Do you get that this is the best outcome the beta can hold out for and that in reality, after playing the delayed gratification game, he’s more likely to end up alone, angry and frustrated and unable to get laid with any regularity? And this accounts for a big chunk of men.
Think about this – the Beta’s best reward is a woman who sleeps with him out of obligation. And yet he’s been told that being a beta pussy is what women want. Can you get the existential mindfuck this is to a man in this situation?
And then what happens? Many times, after having a kid or two, the woman tires of him an stops having sex altogether and when she’s had it, she ups and dumps the hubby – and nobody shames her. Nobody tells her that she’s destroyed a family. Nobody ever even dares mention the hopes and dreams of the man to be a father and have his own family at his side, and what it’s like to lose all that. Nope, it’s just “you go gurl” – male suffering isn’t even given a voice. And in a world where 80%+ of the divorces where there are young children involved are initiated by women, we instead have to see men portrayed as the cheaters throughout the culture. Men are the one’s portrayed as trading up, upgrading to trophy wives and treating women like shoes – when it’s women who destroy the vast majority of marriages.
@ Jack – Love never existed in the first place in the way that you think of it. What you are describing is lust, infatuation, attraction – it’s fun but it does not last. I think the best examples of love in my life come from my male relationships. It’s men who are loyal and support me. Women love differently, and ultimately much more selfishly. As well, if you are swooning for a woman, you cannot establish dominance and keep your own frame and emotional balance – it’s Beta behavior from the start.
In fact, if you ever find yourself pining for a woman or any single women is causing you angst, the best solution is to fuck or find, game and flirt with another one. Spinning plates is the only way you will ever maintain composure with any given women, given how pleasurable sex is for us. It’s not really fair – they have heroin and we are programmed to be dope fiends for it, so our only counterbalance is plate spinning.
I also think you should look for a woman who feels that way about you, as you being dominant in a relationship is actually what will keep it stable and make it last. Romance is a con invented by women to make men be vassals to them – don’t buy it for a second.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:06 pm
I don’t understand the argument that most men’s sexual choices are in fact more limited than in the past, especially outside of marriage, a frequent RP argument related to the former.
It’s an odd way of framing the question, but I think I understand it.
It may be the case that an average guy (beta, not alpha, not cad, etc.) gets the occasional lay outside of marriage more than he did in 1900. And that can look like his sexual choices are therefore less limited than in 1900, because he still gets the odd lay every now and then. Okay. But the difference is that in the past these guys would have been married (most of them) and getting sex on the regular (sex was considered duty in marriage, no marital rape, no idea of husband “not being entitled to my body” and so on). So they would have been having regular sex, rather than the odd lay that the average guy today has. That’s the key difference. You can look at that and say “well, it’s still less limited outside of marriage than it was” and that may be technically true outside of the use of prostitutes. But the actual total amount of sex being had (again leaving aside prostitution) was higher when the average man was married at these ages under the old marriage rules than it is today, when these guys are getting the occasional lay outside of marriage, which is actually less total sex, net/net, than was the case before.
For the rather above average man, of course, the situation is completely reversed. He has less total sex than he did under the old rules, where he was also expected to marry. Of course such men cheated under the old system as well, due to having many women present themselves as sexual opportunities for them. But that was still less total sex, net/net, than it is for them under the current system, where most of these guys have virtual harems today and are getting more total sex than likely at any time since the dawn of civilization.
One can look at this and say “a rising tide lifts all boats” in the sense that the beta today has at least some sex outside of marriage, whereas before he didn’t. But if you shift the frame to that of “total sex”, it becomes clear that under the old rules, these guys had more total sex than they do now at these ages, and that the delta, while still there, between their own level of total sex and the alpha’s level of total sex, was much smaller than it is today. So, yes, perhaps a bit more non-marital sex, even for the less desirable men, but the real news is much less sex overall for these guys, and the lion’s share of sex going to the alphas.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
@Jack
Love is possible. You can love a woman for the complementary role that she plays in your life. In the way that a man can love a horse or a good employee. She in return will make you the absolute center of her universe. That’s the only healthy male-female relationship.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:41 pm
Jack
December 19th, 2014 at 7:47 am
Love is not the same for a man and a woman: read Rollo’s “Women In Love”. And this is going to be hard: “It is best not to love any woman.” It puts you
a. at a disadvantage
b. women don’t like it
Women like bad boys. Women want to be dominated.
There is a lot to study but if you can just accept that it is a good start. Don’t be in a hurry.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:41 pm
@novaseeker Thanks for your response. The feedback here makes more sense to me now.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Badpainter
December 19th, 2014 at 11:38 am
It might be my fault, but it’s not my problem.
I like that. A LOT.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:48 pm
@redlight
“yes Love exists! You can love a woman unconditionally and she can love you conditionally.”
As funny as you’re being there (I did chuckle when I read it), it’s intellectually dishonest to claim that the difference between how men and women love is the existence of conditions placed on that love. As Rollo mentioned, men are idealistic, women are opportunistic. We still have conditions:
– Fat chicks do not get sexual interest or commitment from me.
– Cute single moms get no commitment from me.
– Bitchy SIWs might get a grudge fuck from me at best if they’re physically attractive.
We’re idealists, not idiots. If a chick I’m really in to gets comfy and fat with me, she’ll get a chance to shape up or ship out. If I’m not in to her she doesn’t get that chance, she’s just kicked. If a woman I’m really in to cops a shit attitude I give her a chance to apologize and straighten up. If I’m not in to her, I show her the door.
Idealism means we’re willing to forgive if they’re willing to correct their behaviors. It doesn’t mean we love without condition.
December 19th, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Actually he’s told that “nothing’s sexier”:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/18/controlling-interests/
Heheh, “over time, nothing is sexier”
December 19th, 2014 at 1:04 pm
I think it was Advocatus Diaboli who stated that with the advent of ubiquitous, free, online hardcore pornography the average Beta male of today has been exposed to more sexual variety and more sexual ‘experiences’ (albeit virtually) than all of the most promiscuous, harem keeping Sultans and Emperors in history.
I don’t think that qualifies as “enjoying” greater sexual opportunities for Betas, but it does gratify a Beta’s sexless condition in a way that no other generation of Beta or even polygynous Alphas before him ever had.
Sexual “opportunity” ≠ sexual “access”.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
“Gentlemen, understand this: if your woman ever goes off like this, it’s a sign that you haven’t provided her with a sufficiently strong masculine frame. Beta frame hurts women too.”
Dinghy without a daggerboard. ‘Bye, and bon voyage.
Irreparable wreck, the Flying Dutchwoman of relationships.
Next.
Any other response will be shit-tested 24/7 till you go insane from the noise. They’ll even demand that you hit them “because you want to, don’t you?”. And try to block the door to stop you leaving (doesn’t work on the ground floor, darlin’).
And you’ll be “The Abuser”, for ever and ever. Feets don’t fail me now.
I’d blame the shipwrights, or a negligent former owner.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:09 pm
But I would guess that his satisfaction with his marriage and women was low– though maybe not as low as his modern equivalen– just because he was a beta 5, lacking game or alpha traits, lacking understanding that he will always need to perform (per RM’s recent post). You can see a good example of this in 19th century novel like Madame Bovary, in which a higher SMV, af-chasing wife implodes her marriage to a dutiful beta 5 doctor, long before no-fault divorce or cultural feminism.
Yes, but this is an insoluble problem in terms of solving it in a way that satisfies both sexes *and* builds society.
The old solution hampered women, because it “forced” them into marriages with men who were unattractive for breeding, rather than permitting them to breed with the same attractive men for seed. So, yes, you ended up with Madam Bovary and Anna Karenina, at the “high end”. At the lower end, you ended up with garden variety cuckoldry as well, but as we can see in all of these cases, the social punishment was extreme for this behavior. And it was extreme precisely because what it was trying to suppress a very deep-seated desire in women to secure this seed and not the seed of their less seed-worthy husbands. So belts and suspenders were deployed of necessity. But the old solution built up society because it provided incentives for almost all men to work to do so — almost all men had at least *a* wife, even if the marriage was not satisfactory, and a human female to have sex with under rules where her withholding of sex was also not permitted. So in a sense almost all men were guaranteed actual sex, even if it was not typically from an HB10. Nevertheless the old solution did not really vindicate the male sexual strategy of endless variety, because of the norms of monogamy. Not as strictly enforced against men as against women, particularly the higher up the social ladder you went, but still enforced. It wasn’t the case that all men were having as much sex as they wanted. What *was* the case, however, was a more egalitarian division of “total sex” among the men — not egalitarian, but more egalitarian than the current system.
The new solution favors women at the expense of men because it permits women to exercise their hypergamy for sex with worthy seed-bearers during their peak attraction, then marry less worthy seed-bearers once attraction begins to fade, then divorce said less worthy seed-bearers while retaining their provision post-divorce, freeing up the women to chase the worthy seed-bearers again for sexual gratification. This system benefits women in the sense that they can get both seed and provision, albeit in a series, while the men are stuck with provisioning and no sex from the woman. Women get more of their strategy met. The price is paid by men (literally) and children and, as we are seeing now, society as a whole as younger men check out and opt for pornography and video games over women because their peer age women are all being bred (albeit mostly in a non-fecund sense) by the small group of worthy seed-bearers. This leads to societal decline, rather than building it up, over the course of time. In addition, query whether most women are very happy with this system at the end of the day, once they realize that the vast majority of them are not going to be living a life of endless alpha sex after divorcing beta hubby.
The American upper middle class has come up with an approach which seems to come closer to satisfying the needs/interests of both sexes in a more durable way, but the conditions upon which it rests are available only to a small sliver of the population, and therefore can’t be used as the basis for a broader social model (even though this is precisely what is proposed or wished by many in the chattering classes who themselves are in this social class).
The problem, however, is this – and it’s a core problem. Civilization doesn’t work if *either* sexual strategy is permitted to exercise itself without being checked. A society where all men had sex with all women (or at least all of the top 60% of women) would be a disastrous mess. Similarly a society where women only had sex with 20% of the men and never with any of the other men would also be a disastrous (and likely very violent) mess. But the difference between the two is that male sexuality is more easily satisfied than female sexuality is (hypergamy is simply much more selective, and the number of men who are sexually arousing is just much smaller) such that any social arrangement which provides sexual rules which actually support building up a society rather than wearing it down will almost certainly substantially impinge on female sexual desire. This is because hypergamy is only attracted to a limited subset of men, whereas a system of sex rules that furthers society, and especially productive male engagement with society in a way that builds it up, must dole out the sex much more equitably than hypergamy would prefer. In any situation where sex is doled out in a more equitable manner, most women are going to be disappointed in “who they get stuck with”, because for most women that isn’t the hypergamously attractive man. So, basically, yes, in any system that builds up society rather than tearing it down, the expression of women’s hypergamy is going to be limited, which means more Madam Bovary and Anna Karenina. It sucks that women’s sexuality is so limited in terms of which men it finds attractive (from the perspective of most women being capable of being fulfilled in a model that promotes social building), but that’s just one of many harsh realities about human sexuality, really.
So, given this conflict between the vindication of female sexual satisfaction and the system which furthers social cohesion and development, the key issue then becomes this: as between women not being “stuck with men they don’t want to be stuck with”, on the one hand, and a civilization order which is slowly crumbling due to unequal access to sex and the depressive impact this has on positive male engagement in the society, which do we choose? The current order has chosen the former, quite clearly. Everything in the society — literally everything from education to work, to family — has been reordered to permit women the greatest exercise of their sexuality ever in the history of homo sapiens, full stop. Fewer Anna Kareninas, but more divorce, fatherless children and less positive engagement from men overall in the society. The deleterious impacts on society from this are either flat-out denied (that was the first approach) or pooh-poohed as being the result of a lack of education (the current approach, which is basically “why can’t everyone be like the upper middle class?”). But either way, this is the path we’ve chosen. It will take an utter unraveling of the entire social fabric before this is reversed, however, because it is now the prime directive of the entire civilization.
This is why most of us, even though we understand the bigger picture issues, see movement on that level as mostly futile, and focus instead on accepting this context as the new normal and setting ourselves up to exploit the now feral expression of female sexuality to our own ends. Less noble, but also far more feasible.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I think it was Advocatus Diaboli who stated that with the advent of ubiquitous, free, online hardcore pornography the average Beta male of today has been exposed to more sexual variety and more sexual ‘experiences’ (albeit virtually) than all of the most promiscuous, harem keeping Sultans and Emperors in history.
I don’t think that qualifies as “enjoying” greater sexual opportunities for Betas, but it does gratify a Beta’s sexless condition in a way that no other generation of Beta or even polygynous Alphas before him ever had.
Sexual “opportunity” ≠ sexual “access”.
This is true, although this is also a part of the “cost” in the sense that these guys are less engaged in a positive sense with the society (personally, economically, etc.) than they would be if they weren’t slaking their otherwise unsatisfied libidos using internet pornography. It’s best viewed, I think, as a kind of “safety valve”, in terms of preventing things from blowing up, but it’s a safety valve that comes with its own cost, which is not unsubstantial from the social point of view in terms of the engagement of these guys with real women and with society, their futures, etc, in general.
Something similar can be said of prostitution currently. It’s ballooned along with internet pornography, because of the elimination of the pimp/madam middleman, and the ease of access. At the same time, law enforcement against that kind of freelance internet hooker is very low, so it’s pretty much unofficially tolerated. This acts as another safety valve, but again, one which comes at a significant cost because it further alienates men from women and from building the society up in the context of matching up personal/familial and societal interests and gores more in the direction of men slaking their sexual needs in ways that are unaligned.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:54 pm
@Glenn: “in reality, after playing the delayed gratification game, he’s more likely to end up alone, angry and frustrated”
Reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
The beta strategy first loses out in the sexual arena by trying to use this approach…
Then, adding insult to injury, one way or another they’re stripped of the resources they used their high impulse control to accrue.
Harsh. Patience may be a virtue, but if you stand still too long in nature, you’ll eventually get eaten.
December 19th, 2014 at 1:58 pm
@Rollo
Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context with red pill awareness.
You might be able to shorten that to…
Learn this now, you will never achieve contentment or emotional fulfillment in a blue pill context.
BTW I’ve got “Her” in my Netflix queue. Thanks for the tip! I’ll watch it with my wife.
The other day I was forced to tuck my penis between my legs and watch My Fair Lady. Viewed in a red pill context the movie was an amazing display of Hypergamy. At the end of the film Eliza Doolittle chooses Professor Henry Higgins despite the fact that she hates him, he’s abusive and egotistical. Higgins was an Alpha male with considerable resources that she wanted to lock down. Eliza rejects Freddy Eynsford-Hill despite the fact that he kind, thoughtful and writes her love letters every day. You guessed it, Freddy was a Beta.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Hi Rollo.
For a month I’ve been trying to have my best friend open his eyes.
It was so so so frustrating. I asked him to read your blog and he did, he ordered two copies of your book, one for me too.
Now he can see the word!.
This morning I get this email from him.
I c&p.
Here it is:
I was thinking on my walk into work this morning about what you said about me being embarrassed if my 3rd marriage were to fail as being my biggest reason for not wanting to leave my 3rd wife. And, I realized that you are right, but with a bit of a twist. Yes, I will be embarrassed in front of many people, but I think my biggest embarrassment and source of shame will be in front of my son. He has already mentioned several times since my wife and I got married that he wondered if I would divorce for a third time. I am so embarrassed to face him, and I am so ashamed of what I have done to this boy.
His mother left me and was developing crushes on various men throughout our 11 year marriage. And why was she doing this? Because I was a nice guy, she just wasn’t aroused by me, especially given she was a young woman in her early to mid twenties. Talk about the height of Alpha fucks Hypergamy. The only good thing I did in my relationship with my son’s mother was to refuse to take her back when she wanted to come back to me 6 months after she left. Thank god I had realized by then that I was better off without her. But why do you think she even thought she could come back, because she knew I was a chump!
And then I go and marry my second wife who was so obviously just looking for beta bucks and to have children. The wall was looming big time for her by the time we met in her early 30’s. I brought that fucking cunt into my son’s life and she humiliated me and him. I fucking hate her.
And now, I bring another woman into his life. And while they don’t live together, she’s still someone in his life and if we separate, that’s another loss for him that I have created. Oh god, please forgive me. I have hurt that boy too, too much. How can I ever make it up to him?
This is why men need to learn these lessons early in life, before they bond with fucking cunts and have children with them and fuck up these poor innocent souls before they even have a chance to get started in life with scenarios like I’ve created.
What have I done? I am crying, I can’t face it.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:15 pm
^^^
If you read any of the classics from feminist hero authors Jane Austin or Emily Bronte you’ll see exactly the same Hypergamy plot in every book they’ve written.
Hypergamy is part of the feminine firmware, it’s been expressed since long before anyone put a name to it.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:21 pm
@Mr. T, hit me up via email (on my About page) regarding this
December 19th, 2014 at 2:32 pm
I realized that the only way out is increasing your SMV without caring much about hypergamy. Hypergamy exists as a means to filter out weak genes that are unfit to be passed to the next generation. My current strategy to adapt is; eat well, work out, create money, build my own life social circle and i will get what my SMV can afford. Overshooting beyond what your ‘real value’ will create symptoms of buyers remorse from your female of which she will realize that you were not worth it.Nothing hurts more that instinctual sense of dissatisfaction from a woman.Am glad i swallowed the pill at 25,So much wasted time negotiating desire from females and not selling your real value.In this world only the fit and healthy will survive, weakness derails progress and women know this deep down to their bone.
I am deeply indebted to Rollo for his effort to open men to this hidden world. The only thing that you can rely on is your body and mind and not your friends and family. I learnt that from return of the kings and illimitable men.I also discovered that increasing testosterone naturally will give you intense masculine power which from the basic tenet of masculinity.Without that hormone you are weak, zero muscular growth, you become a useless woman aka wombless female, nature cares for the grand scheme of things. I know i can get a female using Beta bucks strategy but that will never incite that raw real attraction from my woman. I guess the mans way of life is performing whether you do it directly or indirectly. I will die gladly having maximized my SMV even though it would be deemed a mere 5. Being practical is the only way out, enough of the theory….what next ??? maximize of what is available and be glad i did so.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:37 pm
@ manosphere lurker
“Repressed hypergamy gave most men an equal shot at at least one pussy (via marriage or arrangement) or see: assortative mating. So, in this case, most men (dads) were content; Cads, not so much.”
Exactly. Tables have been flipped. And this should allow anybody to understand why Alpha’s in particular are not so interested in “returning to the good old days”. Those days were in fact not so good for alpha’s… they were considered outsiders and they were in the minority. Nowadays beta’s are considered as outsiders and they are in the majority.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:41 pm
@Rolli
How about I ask my friend to contact you instead.
He is at a meeting now.
I’ll wait till he’s done and ask him to email you. Poor guy he is devastated.
Thank you very so much for responding.
I just didn’t know what to do.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:48 pm
@Jason,
It’s interesting because this used to be the ‘template’ for men’s planning one’s life under the old social order. I would add to this:
Always keep in mind the ‘template’ Hypergamy has for women and how it involves men’s compliance to achieve its ends – then plan accordingly.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:53 pm
“…seeing as how sexually, hypergamy sees the majority of men as unfit.”
Correct again. There is no logic in it – being designated as “beta” according to the female mind, i.e feelings; intuition; illusions; imagination; idealism; fantasy; fairy tales and or “pragmatism”, bears absolutely no resemblance to the reality of any man’s actual worth.
Therefore viewing what is considered as “alpha”, through the eyes of a woman/women – is an illusion.
December 19th, 2014 at 3:01 pm
@ Rollo Don’t you think porn also raises the bar sexually? What about the guys in the past who didn’t know that there was better sex out there? I mean, many people’s N used to be single digits. Could it be that porn only makes a beta’s pain more exquisite and graphic? Could it be a thirst multiplier?
Perhaps porn is also why they always want to know details. In the last post’s thread, a link was dropped to a subreddit where a beta was lamenting his superhot wife/gf’s infidelity against him. He made a huge deal of insisting that she tell him every last detail of the full on, weekend long, alpha-gorilla sexual mawling she had eagerly submitted herself to and how many orgasms she had and how “she never felt that way before” and how she let him “do anything” to her. He laid it out for us in excruciating detail and I had this idea. Is this whole focus on a low N by betas about sexual competition? That you have a better chance of not looking bad with a low N woman? That you fear a high N woman will find your sexual performance subpar? And does porn make these guys feel more inadequate and hornier than ever? Fyi, I have had women cheat on me and I never wanted details -and I can’t imagine wanting them.
Par of the problem is having an external evaluation of our performance being most important to us. Men find themselves in this kind of dynamic so often in life that I think many men just slip into it about sex. But in fact, staying inside ourselves is a big part of the Red Pill. What matters most sexually to me now is whether I’m having a good time or not. Dominance flows from this POV quite naturally. Yet another RP paradox. And I could care less about a woman’s N – I can’t remember the last time I had a conversation about it and rarely ever have. And I never discuss mine with a woman anymore, only made that mistake a couple of time – when it’s high it only gets you in trouble.
December 19th, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Badpainter: “Because it is always the man’s fault. ALWAYS. THE. MAN’S. FAULT.”
I don’t disagree with your perspective. I don’t think men have any OBLIGATION whatsoever to provide frame for women. My comment was more a point of game, trying to help other men understand what might be happening and why if they keep finding themselves caught in interminable miserable conversations with women. I’ve been there, I learned: The solution isn’t to listen harder, it’s to develop masculine frame. Or just get out if you don’t want to deal with it.
December 19th, 2014 at 3:20 pm
@ New Yorker
“Love is possible. You can love a woman for the complementary role that she plays in your life. In the way that a man can love a horse or a good employee. She in return will make you the absolute center of her universe. That’s the only healthy male-female relationship.”
Wisest thing ever said.
December 19th, 2014 at 3:37 pm
@ Glenn “@ Rollo Don’t you think porn also raises the bar sexually? What about the guys in the past who didn’t know that there was better sex out there? I mean, many people’s N used to be single digits.”
I wonder if this is accurate, in the past mistresses were the norm, as well as prostitution, just look at the founders of our country for example.
Certainly we are able to pull up some crazy-ass fetish porn that was never previously accessible to the common man , but there really is a limited percentage of the population who would actually like to try most of the bizarre stuff out.
I doubt our ability to even effectively analyze such a question.
(btw, glad to hear you will be “nicer.” I skip over any comment (by anyone), which includes petty insults, and in general, I do like reading your comments; mind you, I appreciate robust criticism, but there is no reason that we can’t be gentlemen and masculine.)
December 19th, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Don’t you think porn also raises the bar sexually?
It also raises the bar for women sexually.
Women, especially ones below, say, 35, have been watching more porn than anyone really thinks, Much less than men, but more than ever before. And the kinds of things they are looking at is interesting. There was some data on that someone posted a few months ago. Apparently the two main areas which draw most female eyes are lesbian scenes (which is very unsurprising — I think we all know that most straight women are at least curious about being with another woman, if they haven’t outright experimented with it) and interracial scenes between black men and white women (where the men have even more larger than average penis sizes than in porn in general). Now, of course, this is an indicator of “fantasies” which are popular, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they create expectations or desires in each and every woman who wants to watch them, but … it isn’t a far stretch to suggest that this also raises the bar a bit with women’s expectations of what any given man can/should deliver in bed, and most men (not only those with actually small penises, but those with regular and even above average size) frankly *won’t* be comparable to these guys who are way in outlier range when it comes to their sizes.
I think the point is that porn is impacting human sexuality now greatly in ways that I don’t think we fully understand yet, and it is impacting women as well as men.
December 19th, 2014 at 4:23 pm
“Women are programmed in every cell in their body to lie, right down to the little hidden ovulation trick that their bodies throw out ”
Yes. So many men, raised by women, are blind to this. Like walking through a minefield blindfolded. Take the RP and take off the blindfold. It’s still a minefield, but at least you have a better chance of not getting your ass blown off.
“Civilization doesn’t work if *either* sexual strategy is permitted to exercise itself without being checked”
Human pair bonding is supposed to be a mutually beneficial, symbiotic relationship. What we have now is not this, and is getting worse. This is the road to dystopia.
“I think it was Advocatus Diaboli who stated that with the advent of ubiquitous, free, online hardcore pornography the average Beta male of today has been exposed to more sexual variety and more sexual ‘experiences’ (albeit virtually) than all of the most promiscuous, harem keeping Sultans and Emperors in history.”
Indeed. Men are nothing if not problem solvers.
December 19th, 2014 at 4:43 pm
@ David W – I have no idea how one would quantify it. I just think if the raciest thing most guys saw 50 years ago (not all guys) was Playboy, which I think was most guys, that spending an hour or two on YouPorn might change their POV. But I’m just speculating.
December 19th, 2014 at 5:38 pm
@Glenn, I’ve unfortunately been in a place of desperately wanting to know details of a girl’s sexual past and experience. Even a few months back, during assimilation of the RP. It was a powerful, wretched anxiety I couldn’t seem to shake, as much as I conciously realized learning would be pointless.
As I developed and began to care less I realized it was a mate-guarding instinct – an extension of the ruminating and worrying that would posess me about what she was doing, why wasn’t she answering my texts, and so on – when I subconsciously realized she wasn’t treating me like her ‘alpha.’
So I don’t know if porn has much to do with it. Maybe makes it worse since you can imagine so many more things, but past that I dokt think so.
December 19th, 2014 at 6:16 pm
New Yorker – “You can love a woman for the complementary role that she plays in your life. In the way that a man can love a horse or a good employee.”
Layoffs, and the glue factory when the time comes. Which why what I have experienced as “being in love” I never want to feel that way again.
December 19th, 2014 at 6:22 pm
Women adopt pet names for their boyfriends and husbands for the same reason ranchers never name their livestock.
It hurts less when they go to slaughter.
December 19th, 2014 at 6:31 pm
@forgethesky
And my response was due entirely to your phrasing. So I apologize for being a presumptuous ass. I do get your point. But the amount of fault attributed to men is so egregious when I see/hear it stated that way I automatically resist and reject.
In fact, and to your point, that has vastly improved my frame. I now realize there few things less consequential and less substantial than a woman’s feelings. If you don’t like ’em wait five minutes, sort of like they say about the weather around here. Worrying about a women’s feels is a beta pathology.
December 19th, 2014 at 6:34 pm
Rollo – “It hurts less when they go to slaughter.”
Are you implying something here about a woman’s deeper understanding of her actions?
December 19th, 2014 at 6:39 pm
I won’t say it’s a conscious tendency.
December 19th, 2014 at 6:50 pm
rollo, you are much older than me and have much more experience with life than i do, and i know the purpose of the rational male has always been rationally laying out facts and uncovering basic principles. however one thing i’d like to bring into the conversation is the difference between solid knowledge and good teaching. the fact that you have understood a lot more than most men, especially the ones new to the sphere, automatically leads to them looking to you for guidance and my experience (i do one on one coaching and teaching of mostly young men in a field based on being selfsustaining) has been that if you present people who aren’t down the road as far as you might be with information in a way that overwhelms them, they will often lose sight of the big picture and shoot off in vastly unhealthy directions.
i’m not saying you should add game advice or anything. but to me, i read this, and while specifically this post here is very interesting and confirms my personal experiences (as expected), one thing i worry about is that people will be tempted to reinforce, rather than overcome, their anger. that’s not your fault, it’s in the responsibility of the individual taking the pill. but to continue using the analogy, if you give somebody in a vulnerable state a very bitter pill, it might be the right thing to add some assistance in how to deal with the way you feel right after swallowing it.
i had a feeling about the comments on this piece being weak before reading them. you as the writer have no responsibility for how people handle what you write of course, if they can’t deal with it they can’t deal with it. it’s very good to connect these dots and see the studies confirm all this stuff etc. but at the same time i’m thinking – are we leaving the realm of actually being constructive? is the value studies confirming chicks dig jerks add worth the distraction from the big picture they cause? on a societal level maybe, but that will get spun anyways. and for me (and i hope all of you) personally – is anyone surprised? it’s the same with heartiste writing so much about heart science heart recently. does this surprise anyone? if you’re actually talking to girls (as opposed to people online) then no, you’ve seen this, you know this, and most of all, this would never evoke any kind of emotional response.
and yet here’s the sphere foaming at the mouth about how terrible women are for functioning the way they do. what do you expect? they’re girls, their only biological goal, just like with men, is to optimize reproduction and survival. of course the evolved behaviors will facilitate exactly that. so? i don’t understand for the life of me how people here can actually pine for socio-sexual restraint of women and good old days of social orders where the men were made heads of their household and women would just magically submit. you know why you’re not head of your household? because you’re weak! you know why woman don’t let you lead? because you’re bitter and whiny bitches who let things they have no influence over affect them.
obviously those things are basics that you have covered. i think one main disadvantage about a blog is that it’s not laid out as it is in your book and rather than structured teaching you get disconnected lectures that, not by their content, but by their being out of context, lead to recently unplugged guys missing the point completely. you are a spearhead in the way you touch on topics that haven’t really been explored in depth before in this way and it’s very important that you keep doing that. but at the same time i wonder if there’s anything that can be done to prevent freshly unplugged guys completely misunderstanding what you are teaching and going “ha! see! women are lying whores!” instead of realizing that you yourself is the only thing you actually can work on. maybe that’d be worth some thought, especially looking at the comments on this piece here.
December 19th, 2014 at 7:04 pm
Even Paypal seems to acknowledge (and promote) open hypergamy:
December 19th, 2014 at 7:08 pm
dr. seal – “i don’t understand for the life of me how people here can actually pine for socio-sexual restraint of women and good old days of social orders where the men were made heads of their household and women would just magically submit.”
I am all for people doing whatever the hell they want just so long as they don’t expect me to:
1. Cleanup the mess
2. Pay for damages I didn’t cause
3. Expect me to be empathetic, sympathetic, or non-judgemental
So let women be what they are, but let’s stop taxing the men, men they hate according to one comment, to make up for the financial consequences of their actions. And let’s end all affirmative action programs while we’re at it.
December 19th, 2014 at 7:13 pm
@lurker
“Mario is a hurt beta. He reads manosphere blogs and finds Vera was just being a hypergamous cunt. Mario forgets about Vera. Good work, Mario”
December 19th, 2014 at 7:31 pm
Glenn
December 19th, 2014 at 11:31 am
“I was asking how they account for the power of sexual selection in their feminist ideology? How do they account for the fact that women prefer to breed with men who exude the exact masculine traits they say are problematic?”
Glenn, you’re onto something here that ties into rape hysteria.
They account for it by denying it.
That’s why a lot of these “hypergamous frustration” based false rape accusations are leveled at alpha types.
Since they aren’t (in their ideology) attracted to the alphas, then if they had sex with one it must have been rape.
IOW, men must bear not only the burden of women’s hypergamy, we must also bear the burden of an ideology that condemns men for serving that hypergamy imperfectly in their eyes.
Rape is now defined as merely failing to satisfy a woman’s hypergamy in all respects.
December 19th, 2014 at 7:40 pm
@dr seal, one of the inherent weaknesses of having a popular blog is that you’re only as relevant to your readers as your last two posts and their personal investment in your ideas.
All of the concerns you’ve expressed in your comment I’ve dealt with in the past.
Anger, bitterness, hope, you name it. For the first year and a half of the blog all I blogged about was “constructive” Game technique and the underlying reasons for why they work.
In the coming year I’ll get into some Game posts and catch hell for promoting “that PUA shit, c’mon you’re better than that man”. Then I’ll post something like New Hope and get run up the flagpole for being naive or losing my edge for being too positive. After that I’ll delve into the social implications of Hypergamy and have Marxism explained to me.
You see how this works?
I can point you back to various posts that address exactly the things anyone thinks I haven’t already thought about and they go “Hah, I gotcha! You didn’t go into A, B and C.”
In every new post I make an effort to link back to various posts I think people may find relevant about what my current topic is, but I can’t cure the TL;DR disease, and it’s really not in my interest to do so.
December 19th, 2014 at 8:44 pm
I’m late to this party, but just want add…
Briffault’s Law. Always Briffault’s Law.
December 19th, 2014 at 9:07 pm
Rollo, any chance you can do an upcoming post on how one sided all platonic and not-yet sexual relationships with women are? The classic, a chick will never loan you money, a chick will never take you to the airport, etc. Exploring this dynamic, and how to handle it in terms of game and working it to your advantage
December 19th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
Glenn: re: wanting to know the details.
.
I can say now, consciously, what I knew then subconsciously: infidelity breaks the “you have the best genes and you are the best provider” acclamation, albeit implicit, of a wife’s vow. The search for details is a typical male response to failure—how can I fix this?
.
While I do not think the attempt to fix a problem is a beta behavior, the bitterness of infidelity is the realization that the woman embodied the male’s infidelity to himself. Skirting that realization is, in my mind, a beta behavior–the unwillingness to embrace the suck.
December 19th, 2014 at 10:47 pm
I have been lurking around here for a few weeks now and am just amazed at the brilliant insights into intergender dynamics. All of the RP concepts ring true and seem to explain so many of my personal experiences and observations. I have also tested many of them out on my wife with stunning success.
Although I had my share of burns due to typical beta behavioral errors with females when I was younger, I think I actually Forrest Gumped my way into a pretty good situation. I ended up marrying a high school girlfriend right after college who was very modest and had always seemed to perceive my SMV as being several notches above her own, even throughout our twenties.
She also never had any career aspirations whatsoever and has not had a job in years. We are now in our mid thirties and still happily married with two children. So, fortunately for myself and our children, she will never be able to compete with my provisioning and does not question my position of authority over our household.
We both pity all the bitter, unsatisfied, feminists (including my own sister, unfortunately) who would look down on her for not being a “strong independent woman” and judge our family as an “oppressive patriarchy” or some sort of hokey anachronism. She is immeasurably happier than every single one of her friends who are either still dating in their thirties, divorced or constantly threatening to divorce their BP/beta husbands, which subscribe to gender equality nonsense and let their wives work lousy jobs they hate in exchange for a share of the domestic authority they do not need and cannot handle. The saddest part is that it is their children who suffer the most in all of this.
I must admit, however, that I became a Christian in my early twenties and believe it was God and his Word that actually unplugged me from the BP matrix and influenced my decisions and behavior over the years, leading to a healthy marriage along with many other blessings. Looking back, It is very interesting to see how well these RP truths Rollo is exposing here seem to conform with Biblical teachings regarding marriage, family and the nature of both men and women.
December 20th, 2014 at 12:14 am
Estrous. How I like you when I’m whitetail deer hunting when it is indispensable. Recently I found it is indispensable with married man game.
Too bad it took me 24 years into marriage to discover it.
Coming up on 25 year old marriage and 50 year old wife (still a WILF) with 20 and 22 y.o. children.
My hobbies for the last 18 months have been being a better father to my son (Thank You Jack Donovan “The Way of Men” #INDISPENSABLE).
And the other hobby: #AvoidDivorce.
My Myers-Briggs type INTJ (like KrauserPUA) (AND I SUPECT Rollo Tomassi is INTJ). has led me to push my chips all in to my marriage and it is working. With Jack Donovan and Rollo Tomassi being a touchstone, I have doubled down on reconnecting with my wife who has a SMV 4 points higher than me, but I have an equal MMV based on my intellect (INTJ) and profession. My wife is hot now and when she gets old and wrinkled I am going to respect her because of her fortitude, and good values. I’m debating whether I should change my phone ringtone when she calls me from “Crazy Bitch” from Buckcherry. She is fully female with all the traits of THERATIONALMALE and Game and Rollo have allowed me to Be a Better Man and play her. Although I’m actually being a better man more-so than playing her.
The only reason for this post is that I just had my best lay in the the last couple decades (ten minutes ago). I anticipated it. My wife was in estrous tonight. And the last 6 months of married man game have paid off (I made myself better). The endorphine game from lifting weights has come into play and is addicting.
Go forth and be better for your woman.
December 20th, 2014 at 1:48 am
@ BC
“I’m late to this party, but just want add…
Briffault’s Law. Always Briffault’s Law.”
Good point – which only confirms why men should not value themselves (their worth) according to (either) the perception of their worth according to women, or according to the biological drives of women (which are purely biological in terms of procreation – but not logical otherwise) – except if you WANT to be involved in a win-lose situation (in today’s world, due to the unbalanced nature of actual rights and laws and the implementation of them, having empowered woman to the extent that they own men) – or if you WANT to have to game your woman perpetually until the end of days, just to hold on to her (and with no guarantees that she’s not playing around behind your back – because she most likely is anyway).
80% of men are more or less (or completely even) worthless to women – men from all walks of life, ability, education, experience, talent, ambition, success, etc, etc, etc. How RATIONAL is that? (From a non-procreation perspective).
An additional reason why men nowadays can really afford to go their own is because the planet has developed an overpopulation issue – so no harm dome if one does not have children (if that is your choice).
December 20th, 2014 at 4:52 am
Tam the Bam
December 19th, 2014 at 1:06 pm
Women. A LOT of them DO want to get hit. I was in a relationship for a while with one like that. She would goad me until I punched her in the arm. Then she was all peace, love, and good vibes. I got sick of it and told her I was NEVER, EVER going to hit her again. She knew I kept my oaths. Never seen a woman so furious in all my life. She kicked me in my azz as I headed out the door, laughing.
I subsequently worked out other ways to dominate.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:04 am
Novaseeker
December 19th, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Very good analysis.
Could you expound on this more?
The American upper middle class has come up with an approach which seems to come closer to satisfying the needs/interests of both sexes in a more durable way….
December 20th, 2014 at 5:16 am
I am so embarrassed to face him, and I am so ashamed of what I have done to this boy.
It is why I couldn’t divorce – even once. I just manned/Alphaed up (again) and soldiered on. And I had game since ’62. So in a sense it doesn’t matter when you learn it. You WILL be tested past your limits. It is their nature. I will say one thing – it has been an interesting life. And that was what I wanted more than anything else. Romance, adventure, excitement. And more than a few interesting engineering projects. I can always retreat to my drawing board/computer.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:25 am
J.J.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:53 pm
Besides the physical there are the pheromones dominance/arrogance generates.
You saw that in the guy who had it all and couldn’t attract women. He suicided. Definitely not an alpha trait in most circumstances.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:37 am
And I never discuss mine with a woman anymore, only made that mistake a couple of time – when it’s high it only gets you in trouble.
I dunno. It seemed like my high N was an attractant for the first mate. I could see it in her body language when we discussed it. “He has had all these others but I AM GOING TO KEEP HIM. And she puts in what ever effort it takes to just barely do that. She actually likes – to a certain extent – when I have a girlfriend. She just LOVES beating the competition.
That of course was when we were dating (10 years). When children arrived (my decision) we both settled down for their sake. Which is not to say her testing ended. See above. But I sill get hit on and “threaten” her with other women. To keep her interested. Humans is very strange. And interesting.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:38 am
Lets try that again:
And I never discuss mine with a woman anymore, only made that mistake a couple of time – when it’s high it only gets you in trouble.
I dunno. It seemed like my high N was an attractant for the first mate. I could see it in her body language when we discussed it. “He has had all these others but I AM GOING TO KEEP HIM. And she puts in what ever effort it takes to just barely do that. She actually likes – to a certain extent – when I have a girlfriend. She just LOVES beating the competition.
That of course was when we were dating (10 years). When children arrived (my decision) we both settled down for their sake. Which is not to say her testing ended. See above. But I sill get hit on and “threaten” her with other women. To keep her interested. Humans is very strange. And interesting.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:55 am
@A Woman re: “But I would guess that his satisfaction with his marriage and women was low– though maybe not as low as his modern equivalen”
Hence, the beta’s situation is *worse* now. There should be no attempt at confusion or misunderstanding: it is simply worse.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:57 am
Glenn
December 19th, 2014 at 4:43 pm
Blue movies and sex shows at county fairs. Never saw blue movies until the rise of video porn (Christy Canyon – yum). The county fair was pretty tame by today’s standards. But I got to see a real live adult female pussy with hair at age 17. From about 3 ft away. I can’t recall her tits. And she was definitely skanky. Of course the midway was nearly closed by then.
And my dad kept a box of Playboys in the basement. Just like “Married with Children” heh.
December 20th, 2014 at 5:58 am
@Glenn re: “I was asking how they account for the power of sexual selection in their feminist ideology? How do they account for the fact that women prefer to breed with men who exude the exact masculine traits they say are problematic?”
Obviously they do not account for it, and deny it, and suppress evidence that they are wrong. They prefers lies to truth.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:01 am
Which why what I have experienced as “being in love” I never want to feel that way again.
Oh. Yeah.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:05 am
re: “over time, nothing is sexier”
Hehe indeed, but I’ll emphasize differently: to women *nothing* is sexier than having to force themselves to have sex with these long-term men that they supposedly love in a “better” way than sexually.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:07 am
Obviously they do not account for it, and deny it, and suppress evidence that they are wrong. They prefers lies to truth.
I nave Red Pilled the OL the last few years and she freely admits that she wants me. Badly. I found out that part of her early in the relationship and cultivated it. To the point where I encouraged her to date if she wanted. Just so she had no “could I have done better” lurking in the back of her mind.
Smooth sailing? Hell no. But that determined attraction on her part has helped.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:11 am
Trugingstar’s despair at Christian redpill may be appropriate here albeit misplaced in its direction. The heavy lifting that DS and Donal and others are trying to do cannot work, in my unhumble opinion. Women prefer bad boys, and bad is incompatible with Christianity, full stop.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:13 am
Rollo Tomassi
December 19th, 2014 at 6:22 pm
The OL never had a pet name for me. It was always “Simon”. Sometimes pronounced in Spanish. Seemon. Which means yes in Spanish slang. She is Italian and Finnish.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:14 am
The heavy lifting that DS and Donal and others are trying to do cannot work, in my unhumble opinion. Women prefer bad boys, and bad is incompatible with Christianity, full stop.
It is painful to watch.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:19 am
dr seal
December 19th, 2014 at 6:50 pm
So there should be a big sign at the top? Master Your Anger Before Entering I’d say that is the rule before dealing with women period.
If you haven’t doe even the rudiments of that women will use it against you.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:21 am
@Glenn, re: “one way to get laid was to make the woman believe you are falling in love with her – that night.”
I dunno. I define “in love” as obsessively limerent. I think women wish they could experience falling “in love” as big and hard as men experience it, which is the main reason women like romance novels. It’s the same Freudian envy that makes women wish they could experience having clitorises as big and hard as men’s …
But in the same way that women do NOT like or want 80-plus percent of men’s penises, women do not like or want 80-plus percent of men’s lovey doveyness. A random woman in a bar (who is there specifically to see if anyone interests her) is probably somewhat *less* attracted to a random’s man’s public “in love” signals than she is to his public display of his erect penis to her. I do not suggest either approach as viable.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:23 am
@M Simon, re: “Just so she had no “could I have done better” lurking in the back of her mind.”
Ok, but due to women’s lesser drive, the option of *nothing* (and cats) is always lurking too.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:27 am
After that I’ll delve into the social implications of Hypergamy and have Marxism explained to me.
Should I apologize or should you thank me? LOL.and ROTFLMAO. Nice touch BTW. But you have to admit that there is a lot of ignorance on the subject.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:31 am
Ok, but due to women’s lesser drive, the option of *nothing* (and cats) is always lurking too.
Old age brings a LOT of that. But back when the juices were flowing better in both of us it was important. However, we have spent too much time together. And these days when I suggest she get a boyfriend if she isn’t satisfied she recoils.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:40 am
SJB
December 19th, 2014 at 9:38 pm
I ALWAYS gave the OL more details than she wanted. What we (the other woman and I) did. How good it felt. Made her up her game. She never cared to give me any details. And I never pressed. Too much.
I should ask her “Was there anything you tried with others that you would like to try with me?” Just to see her response, if nothing else.
December 20th, 2014 at 6:50 am
or if you WANT to have to game your woman perpetually
Well yeah. Why not? When you are practiced it is not real hard work. If not her some one else. Or both of them.
As to overpopulation? Malthusian crap. No such thing. Besides as incomes go above about $5K per capita per year breeding goes below replacement. Even Islam is in trouble.
December 20th, 2014 at 7:05 am
Glenn,
M. Simon – Not dignifying the ridiculous, ahistorical “Islamism is Nazism”
Perhaps that should be qualified to “before the 20th Century” but I have given you more than enough historical evidence to make my point. What you want to BELIEVE is up to you. But that does not change the history. And maybe it should be “not all…” But it is not insignificant either.
You might want to look up the origins of the Baathists. Interesting history there. And “Mein Kampf” is STILL a best seller in the ME. You can look it up.
And personally I don’t care if you are nice to me. We have developed enough rapport that my feelings will not be hurt. I have been blogging since 2004. Commenting since about ’96. I’m used to it. Even from friends.
December 20th, 2014 at 7:23 am
We have no real room to complain about women’s unique dishonesty.
The OL will lie like a rug in the hopes it will get her what she wants. I prefer the truth. If you get known for truth it starts to have power. Very handy in engineering. But I can see an engineer and a salesman weighting those things differently. Salesmen who sell to engineers hew pretty close to the truth. They don’t do well otherwise. There was a salesman from Arrow….
BTW if you need some work I may have a sales project up your alley. Would you be interested in being an officer for an engineering start up? Nothing immediate. But not too far off either. You any good at particle physics?
December 20th, 2014 at 7:37 am
As well, humans are rarely capable of pure rationality in the first place, but rather mostly engage in “motivated reasoning”.
Engineering is different. Some. Rationality is about 10% vs 1% or less in most of the rest of the world. The biggest disasters in engineering come from not giving rationality enough weight. Such things as, “Well the prototype works.” That one cost the company $3 million. My “but what if…” ignored until too late. Because of motivated reasoning. “We can’t afford a schedule delay.” They never did deliver. Had they considered that an option they would have incorporated my suggestions as a backup plan. But that was denied because, “We can’t afford it.We have to keep the costs low.” More motivated reasoning. You have to watch for that motivated reasoning stuff. It can be a killer.
December 20th, 2014 at 7:52 am
Some Old-School Red-Pill Reading:
On Women by Arthur Schopenhauer
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/onwomen.html
Misogyny Alert!!! (For those sensitive alphas out there ;-) )
December 20th, 2014 at 8:10 am
And the only “change” you can implement through activism is political, not personal, hence why M. Simon is hectoring us about that.
You know. I was wondering about that. If I was to make a political suggestion to leftist betas they would be all over it. Criticizing, improving, accepting. What ever. Around here other than Glen who has no interest (fine with me) nothing. I sincerely believe that some of the FI could be rolled back if the men on the right had a vision of improving the world. That seems to be a lefty thing totally absent on the right.
The attitude seems to be “the Alphas can take what they want and the Betas can live in defeat”. The right no longer has faith in itself. A vision. Something it wants to accomplish. Not even a vision of better let alone utopia. They don’t even want to make the world better for children. Something that it might be possible to sell to enough women to accomplish a few goals. If I was to be harsh I’d say – betas like that don’t deserve to reproduce. And they will not.
I must say it is sad in the extreme though.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:20 am
“Man Up!” ahoy!
To the harpoons, lads. Whereaway?
Code Red, Code Yellow and mostly, Code Purple @1850hrs, cap’n.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:27 am
@mike, have you checked out Dalrock’s blog? He looks at the red pill from a Christian perspective. It’s true, the bible is pretty redpill; but people nowadays do their best to ignore that with things like ‘mutual headship’ and other horseshit.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:40 am
“A people is not defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground.”– Cheyenne saying
December 20th, 2014 at 9:43 am
@ jf12 – You missed the point of how the “falling in love” gambit works. It’s a fantasy – it’s not real. In a bar pickup situation you must get the woman into her fantasy state of mind – that’s how short term pick up works. You can get her there in many ways and this is just one of them.
I’m not talking about “love” in the sense of being married for 25 years, I’m talking about the uncontrollable impulse to tell a woman you love her for the first time. It worked every time I did it – but I only did it 4 times. It’s a very long gambit, you have to go deep, but if you have the time and the game, it’s a lock. It’s also one of the ways to get a same night lay, as it gives the reason to not just exchange numbers and “hang out sometime”. Do you not believe that every woman has the fantasy of being swept off her feet by new love? Mmkay…And the phrase that would fall out of my mouth, after she’d spent an hour or more dragging it out of me, was ‘I feel like I’m falling in love with you – I know that sounds crazy, but it’s true. Do you feel it too?” Lol, yes they did, each time. But this is no beginner gambit.
It’s about as hard as maintaining a false identity all night. My friends and I would play a game in the bars (well, I invented it) that went like this. When presented with a new woman or group of women, I would randomly introduce the other guy(s) and myself with completely fictional names and careers etc. I would become Herve in from Paris, scouting a movie location – French accent and everything. I was typically in Canali suits, yeah? I looked the part of a very successful young international type. because I was, =and have a boyish face that has always let me get away with murder. Some of you would be amazed how easy it is to get over on the average woman if you only put in a little effort.
Fyi, I stopped doing all this stuff at a certain point because I knew it was morally wrong. But there was a period of time in my early 30s, just after my ex and I had split up that I went at getting laid with a vengeance. I actually had an incident at work where I had fucked three different women who worked for the company, and it all became known, sullying their reputations – but not mine of course. They didn’t work for me, I ran a field office, they were HQ types. But my lying and game playing and sneaky fucker ways were laid bare for me by one of the women, a woman who I really liked as a person. It made me clean up my act. Power is a dangerous thing and must be used for good purposes. I haven’t played any of the games I talk about above since I was 33 years old. And wouldn’t.
@ dr seal – So much great stuff, thanks. You are exactly right about how anger is a problem for Red Pill guys in that some get stuck there. I agree completely that real freedom and power can only come by moving beyond anger. I’m not angry that women are the way they are. In fact, i can say that I actually love women again. In the sense of femininity and the sweetness they can project at times and the female form. I was super angry for a while, about a year almost, but i didn’t get here till I was 50, so there was a lot to untangle.
While I won’t argue your religion (or politics here anymore, apparently the publisher would rather pretend it’s not relevant), I do think there is one aspect of familial organization that you miss. You claim that if only men were better leaders and instead of being “whiny” we just alphaed up enough, the women around us would comply. Uh, no.
Women who are willing to be consciously submissive in their relationships with men are simply not there in large numbers today. Interestingly, I’ve been with women who would be submissive in bed, and enjoyed me being aggressively dominant there, but would resume being bitches as soon as we were done having sex. I like hardcore fucking bitchy women, they are usually wild lays. I’ve also play the dominance card with independent women in important moments, but otherwise it’s just too much work. They just try to constantly wriggle out of your dominance. So I don’t bother anymore. It inherently unstable and while with focus I can bring it back into balance in the moment, it always goes sideways when i’m not focused.
As a man, I learned that sometimes following a leader was the most important thing I could do as a team member. I had to “make” my leader right in my head, that submitting to his leadership was for the good of our team and what I was expected to do as a team member. My point? You can’t lead if others are constitutionally incapable of following and the entire culture tells them to be “independent”. We live in a narcissistic, socially fragmented age where everyone is their own leader. And nobody has to follow anyone anymore in our world. It starts with the first leader everyone should have in their lives – their father, but that’s just not how it is anymore. So most people don’t learn the power of submission and following, and what it’s like to be led well and protected. It’s also true that many men are not worth following…
Last. With respect, I’d also ask the fundo Christians here to consider whether fighting the trend away from religious belief in the West is an additional battle men want to take on? First off, keep in mind that most men do not believe in anything evangelicals are offering. So how exactly does this plan go? Step one; Everyone has to be “saved” by Christ. Step two: Women have to forget being independent and submit to men. Uhh, seems to me like those are some pretty big hurdles to get over.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:10 am
@ M. Simon – I know all about the Grand Mufti and the fascist history of Ba’athism, far better than you do M. None of it makes comparing Nazism with Islamism a valid concept. I get it, you are a Zionist and you need to justify the campaign of invasion, occupation, colonization and ethnic cleansing that is ongoing in Palestine somehow, and calling Muslims Nazis provides the moral license to do so. But please, anyone who studies history seriously laughs at what you are saying. It’s just partisan hyperbole and doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously. But you won’t stop because such tactics are working – Zionists now control 78% of Palestine, only another 22% to steal – why would you stop now? Fyi, due to the Brits supporting the Zionists and breaking Sykes Picoult, the Arabs were never going to side with the allies in WWII – and if you were an Arab Muslim living there at the time you would have fought with the Germans too. Next.
Like I said. Don’t do this here, it’s the wrong fora for it. Send me to some shitty blog where we can go at it if you like – I’ll shred your pathetic, Zionist agit prop to bits. Just not here.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:29 am
M. Simon – “When you are practiced it is not real hard work.”
I’ve decided never to do that sort of “work” again. The process should be immediately and consistently fun, rewarding, and effortless otherwise it’s not worth my time and energy.
December 20th, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Glenn
December 20th, 2014 at 10:10 am
Not impressed.
December 20th, 2014 at 12:27 pm
Badpainter
December 20th, 2014 at 10:29 am
I have children.
See: Mr T.
December 19th, 2014 at 2:14 pm
December 20th, 2014 at 12:36 pm
Badpainter
December 20th, 2014 at 10:29 am
Further – I have other interests. And despite/because of the effort I am having fun. I think of it as mountain climbing. Or a never ending engineering project.
December 20th, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Men’s vs women’s sex drive. I once tried to figure out the difference from the tails of the curve. About 3% of men are into fetishistc sex. For women the number is 1%. From that it is possible to estimated the difference. It is not a lot. About 1/2 standard deviation.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:40 pm
I want to apologize about what I said about FBNF. I have no way of knowing she’s a slut, as well as a bitch. That’s stupid of me. People have probably accused me of… going beyond the side-hug. Just assume that FBNF is who she says she is in that matter. Otherwise, she’s just your ordinary, ass-kiss. Fixed.
The guy, though, is a technical virgin. So. Awesome. I had the unfortunate luck of finding-out what “feeling up” meant in a movie, and I had to turn away. He must have hung-out with fat chicks, because there’s no way he could get that far without me as his wingman. Couldn’t get me as his wingman without feigning interest. The hamster is strong in that fag.
I guess they’ll just keep blogging-away, as long as there are enough yes men out there to like their crap.
God forgive me, this is why I hate women. All of the cock-sucking (*ahem* homeschooled) whores that I graduated with ended-up marrying studs, but for some reason, I can’t even attract marginally decent. They just can’t keep their mouths shut, I guess. hehe
I usually hate men too. I just hate people. :P
It’s this massive power-struggle. If I were a dude, I’d be fine going, “Well, I’m just going to sit back and let the cards fall where they may. Que sera sera, people, do whatever you want! You’ll pay for it later, and I’ll win in the end! That’s grand when your don’t have horniness + a biological clock + shrinking marriage market = late unset PMDD. :P Did you know that not having sex effects your health, when you’re a woman? I’m just like a living, breathing, human science project. It’s what happens when my urge for an orgasm gets so strong that it back-fires and turns into hot, crazy rage once a month. I was told this by a health professional.
Even with all of that, I kind of get to a point where I’m just like… okay, these guys all suck. You have the strong assholes and the weak assholes. The “nice guy” is just an asshole with no game. This is generally speaking, because I hold faith that there are a few good people out there.
You know, if I’m at the point where I don’t think there’s anyone worth marrying. It’s one thing if someone wasn’t raised in a Christian home or they don’t believe in the sanctity of marriage and sex only within marriage and all that. I understand. However, I don’t see sexual experience as being attractive. It seems dark to me. If I see it in words, I’m fine, but if I see it in pictures, it all really bothers me. It reminds me of someone taking a dangerous drug: there’s a soullessness about it, a feeling that the person is dangerous and out of their own mind, and a feeling that the person is dying. Within marriage, it’s special (or I hope it can be), but outside of it, I wish Christians would just stick to their guns and stop acting like it’s so cool. It’s very upsetting. It’s one thing if people are going to church after having had a lot of sex and are trying to return to a more innocent state of mind. It’s completely different when subtly brag about it or use their experience to take advantage of other people.
Sorry not sorry for the rant. It had to go somewhere, and my Facebook’s duty is to look all chipper all the time.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Sorry, no need for everyone to know that about what’s his face’s sexual history, you can fix it. I’m obviously upset.
December 20th, 2014 at 8:50 pm
At least at this point, I’ll feel like if I never marry, it will be by choice. All of the sin that people do in the process to appear “holier” and get married: lying, gossiping, slandering, sex, coveting… it’s just not worth my soul to get married. I’m not doing it. It’s too late. It’s too bad, I wasn’t set-up for marriage by my family. I don’t think anyone really knew it was going to be like this. I’m caught between watching my sexuality slowly die and killing my soul with the competitive, narcissistic shit people do nowadays. I’m so pissed at the human race, especially so-called “Christians” right now, that I don’t need them. They totally suck. Don’t give a damn if they reproduce and have a bunch of little suck-ass kids and try to intimidate me with their “I’m married, therefore holy”-ness. I won’t operate in that system.
December 20th, 2014 at 9:04 pm
You know, I’ve done some of that stuff in the past, as revenge for seeing it done to other people. I’m just not going to do it at all any more, unless I find myself in a situation wherein I feel uncomfortable and it needs to be mitigated.
My new rule is also, if a girl likes a guy and it’s unclear how he feels about her, all bets are off: any of us can date the guy. It may be that he doesn’t feel the same way, and likes someone else in the group. However, if it looks like things are going well, I won’t move in on someone else’s turf. If someone is married and flirts with me, I’ll call him out on it this time and make it uncomfortable, “You’re flirting with me. You’re married.” I’m not here to put spark in someone else’s marriage. Also, nothing even close to flirting with people who are taken. I need to cut-out the sexual joking too. Straight-up, I’m not playing games with people anymore.
December 20th, 2014 at 9:31 pm
@Glenn re: “Women who are willing to be consciously submissive in their relationships with men are simply not there in large numbers today.”
Amen. I could not agree more. At least in the past, women were made to feel guilty about not being submissive.
December 20th, 2014 at 9:35 pm
@TruGing, re: issues.
Yeah, trying to do things right is hard. Especially sexually. Keep in mind that the urges you feel once a month are felt MUCH harder by men every single day without letup ever.
December 20th, 2014 at 9:57 pm
@TruGing, re: “I don’t think anyone really knew it was going to be like this. I’m caught between watching my sexuality slowly die and killing my soul”
I disagree. I think this was the plan: to kill our souls by dirtying our sexuality.
I’ve been hanging out with, off working with actually, but sort of carpooling for an hour a day, a girl about your age, brilliant in her way but usually smolderingly quiet as I drive and ramble. Occasionally she explodes in some rant or other about how hard it is to be a woman and keep urges and things under control, but as often as not she sees herself *as* a man, along with the usual apex fallacy – the only men that count as men to her are apex men, so of course *those* men have it easy.
In the past I would have let her go on in full confessional mode, “Ah. Uh-hum. How many times?”, and letting her treat me as a girl and complain about guys. But I really need to cut out discussing women’s urges with them, especially in close quarters.
You probably have done cloud pareidolia, where you see forms and pictures in clouds “That one looks like a three-legged elephant, kinda!” We were doing the same thing with mountains the other day, and with body english imitating what the mountains were trying to portray. One set of peaks looked kind of like a man with a woman … and funny enough I was kinda doing the woman because I had seen that part(s) first but she had chosen to kinda do the man, and we wound up laughing, while jouncing down the road, with our faces too close together.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:02 pm
One more for TruGing, re: “Within marriage, it’s special (or I hope it can be), but outside of it, I wish Christians would just stick to their guns and stop acting like it’s so cool.”
It’s all up to you. Marry a man and YOU treat him as if he were your alpha king, and it will be right and special.