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 20th, 2014 at 10:10 pm
jf12 – “Marry a man and YOU treat him as if he were your alpha king, and it will be right and special.”
A beta hating Jesus-Alpha-Widow? Seems unlikely as she hates the only men who would tolerate her flaws, and marry her despite those flaws.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:40 pm
How am I a beta-hating Jesus Alpha Widow? You need an alpha for that. It’s not as if every guy I like is an alpha just because I like him. I usually like guys who aren’t very popular.
I never said I didn’t have flaws. I do. I have tons. I know what they are and I’m open about them. I’m probably too open too soon, actually.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:49 pm
Step 1: Get married to someone you like
Step 2: Treat them well
It doesn’t have to be Benedict Cumberbatch. I have to like them, put work into it, treat them well, voila.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Truingstar – “How am I a beta-hating Jesus Alpha Widow?”
You said you hate betas. Jesus is your Alpha, the most important man in your life, that no actual living man has any chance of competing with, or being your highest priority. The man that would have you will always be secondary to Jesus. The catch-22 is that any man that would tolerate that is a beta by default, an impossible situation for a believer. He would be punished by you for his faith.
December 20th, 2014 at 10:56 pm
Yeah, he has to be the same religion…
December 20th, 2014 at 11:11 pm
I hate betas and alphas. I hate all men. I also hate women. Sorry for the confusion.
December 21st, 2014 at 12:33 am
Welp, it was fun venting, but I can’t give one douchebag too much of my time. I still have a ton more to meet.
December 21st, 2014 at 12:34 am
Bye, girlss!
December 21st, 2014 at 1:17 am
I suppose that things could be worse for men. We have semi-covert ovulation. If it were that humans had covert menstruation like some mammalian species. Now that would suck.
December 21st, 2014 at 1:28 am
@Badpainter re: “The catch-22 is that any man that would tolerate that is a beta by default”
It doesn’t HAVE to be a catch-22, IF the woman chooses to treat a beta as if he were an alpha. It’s entirely up to her. Not him. I certainly believe (indeed it is the central tenet) that a person can choose to behave contrary to her nature.
Unfortunately, I no longer believe women will so choose, but that’s a different story.
December 21st, 2014 at 2:00 am
@forget, I agree. The Bible is very clear as to which gender God has given the responsibility of headship. “For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church.” – Ephesians 5:23
Also, someone mentioned how being a Christian puts one at an automatic disadvantage with women due to the appeal of the “bad boy” archetype and its presumed mutual exclusivity with the choirboy, beta personality they associate with Christian men. Of course, I cannot entirely deny that there is some truth to that assertion. After all, this world is a bad place and bad men tend to enjoy a survival advantage as a result. Therefore, it stands to reason that women’s mating instincts would give these men an advantage as well. If you think about it though, these instincts, like most of the primal, self-serving human and other animal instincts, correspond perfectly with the carnal corruption residing in the flesh of all mankind, which the Bible calls sin.
According to The Book of Genesis, Paradise, a place purely subject to the righteous law of God, was lost and replaced with a fallen world (probably entire universe and space-time continuum) subject to the brutal law of the jungle (which is the law of the beast/Satan) the first time man chose to obey his wife instead of God. Thus, the deplorable current state of existence in which evil men are generally rewarded for their wickedness while good men are punished for their righteousness and everyone in between is left with the unacceptable choice of either learning to imitate the evil men or having to settle for their scraps.
The fact that the Christian divorce rate is on par with everyone else’s even though the Bible tells us God hates divorce also does not seem to bode well for us. On the other hand, most religious types are just hypocrites who have no real interest in a personal relationship with God due to their unwillingness to accept the earthly costs that tend to come with it. This is probably why so many end up divorced in spite of the particularly intense cognitive dissonance they often experience as a result due to their religious beliefs.
The world does not typically consider true men of God to be “nice guys”. In fact, they are often believed to be the most dangerous and subversive “criminals” of all. They are the ultimate “bad boys” as far as the world is concerned because they will not conform to its nature and have the power to resist all of its efforts to coerce them (i.e. persecution up to and including martyrdom) while everyone else falls in line.
If you thought the RP was eye opening, try receiving the love of the truth through salvation in Christ Jesus. All kinds of things start to make sense that never did before when you begin to receive wisdom from God. It also functions as a powerful DHV when a woman sees that your life and behavior consistently revolve around God and his will rather than her solipsistic demands and selfish desires. Hypergamy also seems to be somewhat confused or even gimped when your wife knows that divorce would upset you first and foremost because you know it would upset God, second, because of how it would affect your children but least of all because of the loss of her “love”. Also, in my experience, it is hardly ever necessary to use dread or expend any effort trying to inspire competition anxiety in a woman who understands that your faith is the primary reason you do not leave her or cheat on her as opposed to a lack of options. These are just a couple of the things that tend to tilt the odds back in the God fearing husband’s favor, minimizing his need to continuously run maintenance game like other married men.
These days, with the divorce industry relentlessly beckoning virtually all married women, it also does not pay for husbands to fake religious conviction. It requires nothing less than the supernatural power of God’s indwelling Holy Spirit to achieve long-term results without exhausting yourself trying to maintain a pious facade with a woman who lives in your home and is able to observe your behavior at all times. Obviously, attempting this can also backfire disastrously if you end up revealing to her that you were a hypocrite all along and diminishing her respect for you. While hypergamy may seem almost dormant as long as the woman sees you as a righteous crusader driven by an unshakable faith and fearless devotion, it will return with a vengeance if she comes to believe that you were just pretending to be a “good Christian” because you were actually too timid, weak and optionless to live as you had truly desired, like the bold and promiscuous heathens you self righteously judge and condemn. Regardless of your actual motivations for dragging Christ’s name through the mud, this is how they will be interpreted by hypergamy.
This is not to say that you must be an absolute perfect saint all of the time; faith coupled with an earnest striving for perfection is sufficient. Unfortunately, many religious people appear to behave according to their own form of spiritual hypergamy in their dealings with God. However, God, being the original Alpha and the Omega is no ones beta.
December 21st, 2014 at 3:12 am
No. Wait. Stop. No.
Learned the lessons, I had.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:50 am
@wanderer
I had to rape away a virginity, and I can assure you that rape is physically impossible.
That is not hyperbole. It is physically impossible for ANY man, regardless of size, to fuck a woman against her will if she is struggling against it.
All she has to do is put her legs close together. Have you ever forcefully tried to pry open a girls legs? I have. It takes two hands. And once you use your hands for that her hands are free to cover up her vagina. And then if you use your two hands to pin down her hands, she can squeeze her legs together again.
You can try to pry open the legs and then use your legs to keep the legs open while holding down the hands, but I know from experience that doesn’t work.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to rape a struggling woman.
The only way rape is at all possible to rape a struggling woman is to bind her arms, at least.
And by the way my virgin girl gave me consent to take her virginity, but could not stop herself from struggling. Her mouth over and over was giving consent, but her body would not stop struggling. I am still dating her to this day, over four years later.
The only way I was able to take her virginity that night was she eventually allowed for her struggle to die down.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to penetrate a womans vagina who is struggling against it and who is not bound.
December 21st, 2014 at 7:02 am
Glenn
I call it love at first sight game and have done that a lot. Although for me I do it with girls that I’m genuinely into, and allow for some genuine emotions.
People have a difficult time believing that it can work, as they have no experience with anything remotely similar. But I’ve done it so many times I know it’s a powerful and viable strategy.
December 21st, 2014 at 7:30 am
@ Mike – With respect, what is a man who doesn’t believe in God supposed to do?I also note your admission that divorce rates are similar in the Christian community, so ahhem, what exactly is it that is being offered in terms of different outcomes? And you also describe how sexuality is leeching into the popular culture of the Church, I saw the early days of this in the Catholic church actually, years ago. I say that occurs because of shifting female values, yes?
I also don’t see women devolving into less independent roles in any foreseeable future other than the “Road Warrior” scenario I mentioned earlier. I know some people think a collapse of state order would be good, but they miss that the new order would be a hierarchy based on the rule of the strong man, and would suck even more for betas. Can you imagine a society with open hypergamy where violent, brutal alpha gorillas are at the top of the hierarchy Might the warlords likely enjoy a very low commitment servicing from beta wives? Who knows, but I can’t imagine any scenario where it’s not even more degrading for those who aren’t at the top of the murderous hierarchy.
The genie is indeed out of the bottle – why would women ever put it back in? In what circumstances does open hypergamy not benefit women?
December 21st, 2014 at 9:06 am
@ Xsplat – It scares me how much I relate to some of your posts, it makes me feel bad about myself actually, lol (just kidding around, sort of…). “Love at first sight game” – holy shit. Yeah, that’s it. And yes, it does work better when you are attracted to the person and like them – in fact, I’d say that’s a must have because it’s an ultra-intense approach, All I really did was amplify the feelings and intimacy, and actually act like I’m “falling” in love without saying it. The key for me was acting uncomfortable about it, making them sell themselves on it, and having them drag it out of me. Really, it was kind of amazing to watch how badly women want to believe it and how hard they would fight for it to be so. The “close” in such a case is trivial, it goes something like “I don’t want this night to end.” She will blush and get wet right then and there, every time. In each case I went back to her place, (my golden rule for 1 night lays – never bring them to your place unless it’s a hotel).
But tell me the truth, X, it was always game, right? I mean, it was technique – you don’t actually tell yourself you are falling in love with these women, do you? Are you one of those guys who tells yourself you do love them all? I get the sense you play many high stakes games yourself, if you want to share more of your exploits here I know I would enjoy hearing them.
Another confession: I always felt guilty about sex and my wild exploits pre-Red Pill (I attribute this to my Christian upbringing, fyi). I used to be ashamed about what I’d done, but post RP I just don’t give a shit. While I don’t think they are “lying, cheating whores”, I refuse to feel ashamed for fucking as many of them as I can – it’s my evolutionary duty (although that doesn’t explain all the blowjobs…). I think that I did much of this deceptive stuff during another phase in my life when i was very angry at women. I wouldn’t be deceptive in this way now, but I have a hard time condemning it. There is a reason why “all is fair in love and war”.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:27 am
Just had to share this treatise on the FI in Vogue. Talk about Open Hypergamy
http://www.vogue.com/6643067/breathless-ten-things-i-learned-about-love-and-sex-in-2014/
“And it’s true. As the emotional, social, and financial equality of the sexes becomes a reality, this change is having a huge impact on sex, romance, and family life. In Dr. Helen Fisher’s TED talk, “Why We Love, Why We Cheat,” she says that we’re returning to an ancient form of marriage equality. “The 21st century is going to be the century of what they call the ‘symmetrical marriage,’ or the ‘pure marriage,’ or the ‘companionate marriage.’ This is a marriage between equals, moving forward to a pattern that is highly compatible with the ancient human spirit.”
December 21st, 2014 at 9:42 am
@Mike, given that the leadership of God Almighty Himself does not induce great, good, or even half-hearted followership in the VAST majority of humanity, there is no possible way any putative Christian can actually believe that it is the husband’s fault when the wife doesn’t follow him. It’s 100% up to her to follow properly. All the fault is on her if she fails.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:58 am
@Glenn re love at first sight game:
https://xsplat.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/intimacy-without-commitment/
December 21st, 2014 at 10:05 am
I don’t consider that I tell myself anything or play any games.
I have an internal narrative, as we all do, but I also feel genuine emotions. I can somewhat regulate my emotions, but my emotions are honest.
I’m honestly into the girls that I have honest emotions for.
I’m not a segmented orange, with this part of myself battling that part. I don’t have warring narratives nor warring emotions. I’m at peace with feeling infatuation, and I’m at peace with feeling nervous. I’m at peace with strong libido and passion, and I’m at peace with finding a beautiful body to be a thrill to see. I really am into the girls that I’m into, and I don’t have to lie to myself or think her shit doesn’t stink in order to remain into her. I know all about shit and stink, and I know all about girls. More than any other man that I know. And I really do love them. I still fall in love, to this day. And I expect I always will.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:09 am
Sunday morning, out at breakfast by myself. Moms in yoga pants everywhere I turn my head. Two, I’m sure, are in estrus right now.
The older one is trying to look like her mid-teen daughter, who is sort of like Hayden Panettierre in sagging dark gray sweatpants and fuzzy slippers. The daughter’s golden hair is perfect going-to-meeting ready, but she otherwise smells heavily of sleep: saliva, urine, feet, underarm, etc. I presume mom helped her with her hair first to avoid whining before the little chapel service later. That blonde mom in estrus has welcoming hips and a two-finger thigh gap leading to her visibly engorged cameltoe in magically non-transparent seamless yellow and matching Nike’s; she keeps glancing at me to see if I’m looking at her, as she fusses with her daughter’s choices.
The younger one is trying to ignore two small children, a whiny boy and sullen girl in mismatched rumpled clothing. The frowsy mom smells of sex, last night sex maybe since she looks desperate to rub. She keeps “adjusting” herself in worn dove-gray, with sort of whiter stretch marks in the fabric itself. A seam splits her down the middle.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:15 am
@Glenn, re: “In what circumstances does open hypergamy not benefit women?”
Good question. The answer is reactionary. If there is too much open hypergamy there will be revolution by betas.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:22 am
The forebrain permits delayed gratification, communication, and planning. These essential attributes enabled betas to gang up on the undelayedly gratified alphas, and to demand a share of the females. After many generations, now the females seem to be getting forebrains as a side effect.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:27 am
Sounds like your mental map matches up closely with The Planet Of the Apes.
My mental map looks nothing like yours. In my mental map those who are successful with women are at least as likely to be intelligent and well bred.
December 21st, 2014 at 11:09 am
@Glen, With respect, for the man who doesn’t believe in God, I believe hypergamy and the FI are among the least of his worries. He faces an even more diabolical enemy that he cannot see or understand. The FI is just a pawn, which this enemy has been using since the beginning of time. The strategy has always been to initially target the woman, being the weaker sex, overcome her and then use her against the man. We are just seeing it implemented increasingly on a macro scale across all cultures.
Man, without God, will inevitably be defeated by this strategy. The goal, of course, is to divide and conquer. First, it will separate man from woman. Then it will destroy the family, which is the foundation of human society and the primary means of resisting and/or overthrowing tyranny. Finally, it will provide the opportunity for absolute global oppression and mass murder with no significant opposition from any temporal authority. While RP awareness will certainly improve the effectiveness of the individual man’s efforts at fornication and possibly even his LTRs, it will only accelerate this process as RP men increasingly chose not to marry and attempt to raise the healthy families so desperately needed.
Unfortunately, most professing Christians today are even worse off than others because they have convinced themselves God is on their side when he is not. The phenomenon of sexuality leeching into the popular culture of the Church was a symptom of the beginning of what scripture refers to as the great falling away. Simply going to church and vainly professing faith while ignoring Christ’s injunction to love one another and obey his commandments, which now seems to be the overwhelming trend, will do nothing for anyone in terms of different outcomes.
This is a war mankind cannot win on his own. The only option is to die one way or another. Thankfully, God provided his only son to die in our place so that we can be born again with him as new creatures indwelt with a Spirit that cannot be overcome by the world, the flesh, the FI or anything else the adversary has in his arsenal.
December 21st, 2014 at 11:37 am
@ jf12, I agree. Nothing is certain with women or anyone for that matter. Sometimes they will chose not to follow you regardless of your righteousness. Even God himself is not exempt from the risk of experiencing the pain that brings.
December 21st, 2014 at 12:58 pm
@ jf12, By the way, I’m not saying RP awareness is not useful for Christian husbands, just that righteousness is not necessarily a liability. My point was that alpha behavior can be embodied in a man of God just as easily as it can be in the archetypal “bad boy”. It is only essential for a woman to be aware that a man has placed something above her as the focus in his life, whether it be God or himself.
December 21st, 2014 at 1:27 pm
In fact, it seems like many, even in the manosphere, have yet to uncover one particular pretty lie that has been forcing most men into one of two manageable categories for the FI for the better part of a century. The lie being that evil = strong/alpha and good = weak/beta. This is absolutely false…remember John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Clint Eastwood, Kirk Douglas, Charlton Heston. These guys did not play beta characters but righteous, uncompromising men that were every bit as arousing to women as any villain ever was. Sadly, their kind is all but extinct though they will be eternally mourned and pined for by the women who still remember them…oh, they will settle for the “bad boy” if that is the only manifestation of alpha left available to them but like the beta, he will never measure up in their eyes.
December 21st, 2014 at 4:03 pm
@ mike – So, you’ve got nothing for the vast majority of men who don’t subscribe to Chritianity. Got it. It seems as though you don’t understand that most men do not subscribe to your mythology. I also do not want to live in a world dominated by Christianity, we’ve already had that.
Funny, I bet you have no idea what a snake oil salesman u sound like. ‘Not only does it cure feminism and hypergamy, it will also cure baldness’. Tell me, what doesn’t this magical belief system of yours fix? And how come it’s all invisible and requires me to believe in it without any evidence?
Fyi, I go here because mike is proselytizing – he could have just said no, I don’t have anything for non-evango Christian men. But instead I get absurd hyperbole about how the devil is really behind it all, I mean, r u fucking kidding me? Do u really believe all that shit? And u r lecturing me? Wow.
December 21st, 2014 at 4:15 pm
jf12 – “It doesn’t HAVE to be a catch-22, IF the woman chooses to treat a beta as if he were an alpha.”
“IF” Is a quixotic fantasy. Women can act against their basic natures but won’t because it’s not in their nature to do so.
December 21st, 2014 at 4:41 pm
@sjfrellc you said “Go forth and be better for your woman.”
No, you got it wrong there, instead:
‘Go forth and be better for YOURSELF’
December 21st, 2014 at 4:45 pm
@ Glenn, Your comment to Mike (21st, 2014 at 4:03 pm) is spot on.
@ Mike, keep your proselytizing to the Christian forums please.
(maybe this will help you understand, would you appreciate it if a Muslim started proselytizing here?)
December 21st, 2014 at 4:49 pm
@Mike re: “I agree. … Sometimes they will chose not to follow”
I’ve cut out all your irrelevantly distracting points about “men do it too.” And you still need to change “Sometimes” to “Most of the time”. MOST women are extremely lousy followers, especially of good men. If you can’t concede this easy concept, then you are not in truth.
The one empirical thing to keep in mind about this topic is that a man behaving evil is *inherently* sexually attractive to women. Don’t distract about good women or whatever. When a man is bad to women, is abusive to women, steals from women, brags about maybe being involved with missing women, tries to pick up women while already having two drunken chicks hanging onto his arms, has tattoos of the devil on his shaved head, drunkenly waves broken bottles of liquor around while telling women how he will cut them to ribbons, he will get more women for more sex more frequently than any righteous man.
December 21st, 2014 at 4:55 pm
@xsplat re: “mental map”.
I understand that men would like to believe better of themselves, but come off it.
1. Alphas don’t have to delay gratification to gain sex, and so they never learn how.
2. Alphas don’t have to communicate well to gain sex, so they never learn how. Generally, pointing to his genitals and grunting works fine.
3. Alphas don’t have to plan to have sex, so they never learn how. Alphas are lousy seducers, and lousy in bed. Sex just happens too easily for them, like breathing. Women make themselves easy for alphas; women line up to service alphas.
December 21st, 2014 at 4:57 pm
@Badpainter re: ““IF” Is a quixotic fantasy.”
Yeah, but Don Quixote had his Sancho Panza. What can be done to make women more willing to support men’s fantasies?
December 21st, 2014 at 5:15 pm
jf12 – ” What can be done to make women more willing to support men’s fantasies?”
Nothing collectively.
And why would we want our fantasies supported when realty itself sucks? The only way is to be bad, or badder. Which is OK so long you are compliance with the letter of the law.
December 21st, 2014 at 5:30 pm
It’s no secret that I hold Dalrock in the highest regard (I credited him in The Rational Male), and I do have my own religious beliefs, but I’ve been in and out of evangelical churches long enough to realize not just how utterly feminized they’ve become, but that no amount of religious conviction, virtue or self-righteous devotion to God on the part of a man is ever perceived as demonstrating higher value to a woman.
Bear in mind that even the most religious of women is still subject to everything I’ve outlined in this post. Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy.
The idea that moral attractiveness is DHV exists only in the minds of men who’ve invested themselves in ‘religious Game’. These are the guys who call their wives their “brides” at every opportunity to reinforce the perception of how dedicated they are to ‘keeping it fresh’ and reminding her that he still thinks she’s “hawt” so she can get a vicarious secular tingle.
The simple fact is that virtue in men isn’t arousing. It may be attractive in a long term sense, but just know that your devotion is only a comforting security to her when she’s in her luteal phase.
The fictional characters played by the likes of John Wayne and Gregory Peck were written by other men who’s romanticism convinced them that a dedication to honor and integrity should be appreciated and desired by women. At the end of the movie it wasn’t their virtuousness that left the ladies with tingles.
I can link you to the FaceBook pages of at least 5 christian women I know personally, who if I ever introduced you to them would leave you with the impression that they were very invested in God, Jesus, their homes, husbands and their church. But each of these women have left their husbands and/or destroyed their family to take up with another guy who they fervently believe was ‘ordained for them by God’.
One woman was a pastor’s wife who left a 16 year marriage and 4 children to get with a guy who’s a consummate Alpha. She’s a good looking woman too, HB8.5, but just this side of 39 she left her Beta, religiously devoted pastor husband who’s conviction led him to plant at least 2 churches I’m aware of.
The guy was sincere, honest and a good father. No personal issues, no booze, no porn, just a hot
wife“bride” and a complete Blue Pill obliviousness. He too believed that his devotion, moral character and faith in God would be DHV and an earned Relational Equity his wife would honor. I remember him telling me about it after he’d lost his home and had to move back into his parent’s place at 43 years old.I’m glad to say he’s gotten back on top again, remarried, and has his life beginning to straighten out, but he’s the same Beta, Blue Pill invested guy he’s always been.
He still hasn’t learned, after all of this, that Hypergamy doesn’t care about religion, convictions or definitions of morality.
I make a policy not to get into issues of race, politics or religion on RM, not because I think those topics are too sensitive, but because intergender relations universally underpin all of the foundations of these. I don’t care if you’re Hindu, Mormon or Jewish, or Black, Asian or Maori, or liberal or conservative; under all of these are how men and women relate to one another.
Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative, don’t care about your race, religion or what your political ideology is.
December 21st, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Thought for the day. The loosening of socio-sexual mores has allowed women to reveal their actual sexual preferences in these five decades post- Sexual Revolution. Women specifically prefer to have sex with *bad* boys; and revealing of this preference has *grown* enormously.
The theory had been that normalizing immorality by making fornication and promiscuity expected, common, and supposedly e.g. *good* “It’s your body, and you’re free to give it whenever you want!” that young women would then choose good boys more. That theory failed, completely backwards.
December 21st, 2014 at 5:43 pm
@Rollo, re: “The idea that moral attractiveness is DHV exists only in the minds of men who’ve invested themselves in ‘religious Game’. …The simple fact is that virtue in men isn’t arousing.”
Amen, preach it brother. The fact that you don’t fumble this concept, like so many others do, is one big reason I’m almost exclusively commenting here.
December 21st, 2014 at 5:47 pm
re: “religious Game”
This particular version can work too well (don’t say I didn’t warn you):
Him: “It is hard to be around you.”
Her: “What do you mean?”
Him: “I want to be good, but you make me want to be bad with you. I’d like to go to heaven, but oh I’m torn.”
Almost instant, I’m telling you.
December 21st, 2014 at 5:54 pm
2nd thought for the day. Much of women’s fashions and makeup were designed to simulate some estrus-y conditions. Her swishing in high heels like her fanny needs attention, and her face flushing with engorged lips, etc. Maybe modern humans are headed away from the aftereffects of concealed ovulation, towards continually pretended ovulation.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:06 pm
jf12 – “This particular version can work too well”
Concur, as does the secularized version.
Several months ago you suggested the script that involves an ambiguous “you bother me” followed by walking away. I’ve tried that twice. Once with someone I previously acquainted with, once as a cold approach. Both were successful, the cold approach yielding the best results in conjunction with a secular version of the “religious game” script above.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:11 pm
You have all missed the point.
“At the end of the movie it wasn’t their virtuousness that left the ladies with tingles.”
Exactly. It did not matter that they were the “good guys”, just that their behavior was generally alpha. You do not need to be a criminal to impress women. Besides, modeling your personality based on what “gives ladies the tingles” is extremely myopic. This is not what life is about gentlemen.
@Glen & David, Get used to my proselytizing. You will never hear the end of it, ever. You can cut my head off, lift it up and it will still continue preaching right in everyone’s hostile, little faces for the hope that someone in the crowd will be saved.
Please WAKE UP before it is too late.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:15 pm
Alpha is a state of mind not a demographic.
Criminals and Patricians can be Alpha. There is no ‘good’ guy. You can’t be Beta 6 days a week and expect her to fuck you like an Alpha on Saturday night.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:22 pm
@ Mike
You might want to reread what Tomassi said
“I make a policy not to get into issues of race, politics or religion on RM, not because I think those topics are too sensitive, but because intergender relations universally underpin all of the foundations of these. I don’t care if you’re Hindu, Mormon or Jewish, or Black, Asian or Maori, or liberal or conservative; under all of these are how men and women relate to one another.”
IOW, Religion is not the topic here.
No one is trying to silence you, and no one will; as Tomassi has made clear, the comments here are not moderated.
I only asked, politely mind you, that you keep your proselytizing to the appropriate forums; this is not the appropriate place to preach about your particular religion.
Thread-jacking for your particular interest is disrespectful to the author, and to everyone present.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:26 pm
@Rollo,
you concluded :
Hypergamy, the Feminine Imperative, don’t care about your race, religion or what your political ideology is
and I should add , and no matter how much you love her..
100%.
December 21st, 2014 at 6:46 pm
@ Rollo ,
You can’t be Beta 6 days a week and expect her to fuck you like an Alpha on Saturday night. .
holly cow !
remember my friend ? I saw him today and guess what he told me ?
he told me , she lets him fuck her on SUNDAY after noon !.
he was up set she does`t fuck him Fri nite after taking her out for a nice expensive dinner !!.
December 21st, 2014 at 7:53 pm
@JJ, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Yes, some women can be attracted to some guys in jail. That does not mean that all women are attracted to all guys in jail.
Yes, you have to treat em mean to keep em keen. That doesn’t mean that you can’t be forward thinking in order to be attractive.
Yes, handsome guys get more female attention. That doesn’t mean that only handsome guys are “alpha”.
You’ve made yourself a completely black and white view of the world.
If you go to a football stadium and prime yourself to notice everyone in the stadium who is wearing a red shirt, instantly you will see all the red shirts. They will stand out to you. Those are real red shirts, and they are really there.
But while you are doing that excersise, you will NOT notice any of the blue shirts.
All you are seeing is red shirts. This is not The Planet of the Apes, this is not High School, and it isn’t only the bad boy thugs who women fuck.
This alpha fucks beta bucks idea is so fucking completely overblown as to be a fucking comic book charicature.
Jeesus. There is a real measurable world out there. Not ALL women have BPD, you know. And we can see with our own eyes who they are fucking. It isn’t just criminals and stupid thugs.
Where do you live, anyway? In some getto? How old are you and how old are your friends? Do you really get out and see people, or is this all some fantasy in your head?
As for bad boy behavior, you don’t have to be a stupid thug or criminal. All it takes is not being a blue pill do gooder beta boy. It’s not so starkly black and white.
For instance a few weeks ago a new lover was acting out by sexually teasing me. She was watching loud porn on her cell phone, and refused to let me grope her or undo her bra. So I ignored her and did some chi-kung, then she’d walk up to me and rub all against me, again refusing me to take off her bra. So I ignored her more and walked off to the toilet, and then she called out “no sex tonight”. So I told her to go home. When she protested, I physically threw her out of my room. She kept fighting and fighting, trying to get back into my room and I had to fling her far from the door just to get a chance to lock it. She stayed outside my room crying and begging to come back in for 1/2 hour and I had to get my live-in handyman and maid to tell her leave.
She sent me a few texts telling me what a horrible man I was, and I just fucking ripped into her on text, badmouthing her hard.
Needless to say all of this not only turned her bad behavior around, but made her start to fall for me. I knew it would.
A few weeks later she told me her period was starting, so I came in her a few times that night. The next morning I notice there is no blood anywhere, and ask her when her period was. I had to press and press her for an answer, and it turns out it was two weeks ago. So I had one of my secretaries rush out to get birth control pills that she can take many of to equal the dose of the morning after pill. She wouldn’t eat them and I had to grab her by the hair and push the pills into her mouth. She still would not swallow them, so I had to explain to her that if she became pregnant she was on her own, and that she’d be a single mom. I told her how many girls have tried to trap me before, and many have been pregnant by me before, but that I will never change and I will still remain single and that there is nothing the girls can do. In Indonesia a girl has NO legal recourse, in ANY way if she gets pregnant out of wedlock, and I told her as much.
Needless to say the kiss goodbuy that morning was sweet and tender, and I got the puppy dog eyed treatment.
Am I a thug with no future time orientation? Do I have a low IQ?
No. Nothing of the sort.
Women mate assortively, and are evolved to seek out fitness. As do men. When I choose women, I do so mostly by looking for youth and beauty, but if I can swing it, I also want brains. Brains is down on the list, but I ALSO want it.
Women want looks, and social power, and they ALSO want every other possible marker of fitness, including at least enough smarts to do better than the other guy.
And the statistics bear it out. The wealthy and the beautiful marry the wealthy and the beautiful, and on average wealth is correlated with beauty and correlated with IQ. People mate assortively, and the most fit get to choose the most fit.
Your view of all girls going after bikers is so over the top black and white as to be outright false.
The world does not work like that.
This alpha fux beta bucks notion has been WAYYYYYYY overblown.
It’s true. There are red shirts in the stadium. But not everybody is wearing red shirts, and some of the shirts only have some red in them.
Turn down the contrast people!
December 21st, 2014 at 8:24 pm
xsplat – “This alpha fucks beta bucks idea is so fucking completely overblown as to be a fucking comic book charicature.”
I disagree. The bad boy thing has been overblown to be sure, Alpha/Beta oversimplified sure but AF/BB is to my observation pretty much spot on.
In the US the model is for a woman to party it up chase AF, then decide to grow up obtain BB and breed. Whether the breeding is with an Alpha or a beta is not relevant so long as some chump gets the burden of provisioning.
The problem with this is the BB provisioner usually gets the dregs of her sexuality and the full cost of her provisioning. And because of the disfunctional legal incentives (at least in the US), there is almost a perfect guarantee of the whole arrangement being only temporary with amazingly high exit costs born by the BB. The only way to avoid that is to forgo marriage, in someplaces it may be necessary to forgo cohabitation. Which is fine for everyone but children and the men that want families.
December 21st, 2014 at 8:36 pm
@badpainter, it’s not true that a man is EITHER a provider, OR a cad. It’s not true that women ONLY have a dual sexual strategy.
We’ve heard it mentioned over and over that during the fertile period women are more apt to stray, and with a certain type of man, right?
However that’s NOT right.
ONLY women who are not with a high value man show any difference at all.
Women can and do get both their strategies met by the SAME man.
All the time.
It’s not some rare dolphin unicorn.
Yes, women have a dual sexual nature.
But there are not only TWO inputs into the system. There a variety of variables, all interacting.
For instance people in this very thread associated driving a valuable sports car with being an alpha. See? The variable inter-twine. Having financial ability can and does bleed into being seen as a high value male – it’s not ONLY about one side of the alpha fucks beta bucks equation.
Now yes, a man can be trained up blue pill and can fall into blue pill ways. Yes, women work in collusion to train men up that way. They fight against all red-pill knowledge. Yes, women prefer men who “just get it”.
But are we all so fucking simple minded that we can’t hold more variable in our head at the same time? It is not planet of the apes here! Girls are in real life absolutely NOT fucking only stupid handsome criminals. Just look around you and see what real life hot young girls do.
In real life in any city and in any time throughout any age a percentage of women will be lower sexual score, and mostly go after serial monogamy, and a percentage will be higher sexual score and decouple commitment from sex. In real life young girls are not all tossing around their pussy to the most handsome bad boy and then extracting resources from a guy she has no interest in fucking.
That’s not what actually happens in the real world.
That’s ONE thing that happens in the real world. The real world is not a fucking comic book of good and evil and stark contrasts.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:06 pm
I call it the Peter Parker underwear hero syndrome.
Guys feel under-appreciated by women. In order to not walk around in a funk all day they downplay the competition. Oh, those guys are just the stupid jocks. Or, oh those guys are just the bad boy criminals. Their dumb and girls are dumb to want to fuck them.
It’s just enough truth to convince a desparate ego that it’s not really our own fault for for not being attractive.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:07 pm
It’s an underwear hero syndrome because we tell ourselves that if only girls took the time and were smart enough to see beneath the surface, they’d realize that actually WE are the real superheros after all.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:09 pm
xsplat – “In real life young girls are not all tossing around their pussy to the most handsome bad boy and then extracting resources from a guy she has no interest in fucking.”
Actually they are. The only variable there is the N, and assuming it’s N=10 by age 30 is not a fantastic stretch of imagination. Given the correlation between number of partners and the reduced capacity to bond emotionally it’s a safe bet that epiphany phase provider is a temporary choice, especially when the society enables and encourages it.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:13 pm
And it’s often the same underwear heros who harbor fantasies of the apocalypse, when the meek shall inherit the earth.
That story has been around so long that it’s possibly genetically influenced.
Ya, right, the apocalypse is right around the corner guys. Ya, you meek and downtrodden are finally going to get what’s coming to you, and all the guys on top now are going to be up against the wall.
Yup.
Enjoy that fantasy as if hope actually mattered.
Me, I’m taking real life actions and having real life consequences.
December 21st, 2014 at 9:14 pm
I feel sorry for men who doubt the believe in Alphafucks/beta(thinking he’s alpha)Bucks .
December 21st, 2014 at 9:42 pm
re: “we tell ourselves that if only girls took the time and were smart enough to see beneath the surface, they’d realize that actually WE are the real superheros after all.”
Who’s we? My contention is that if girls were smart enough then they wouldn’t want superheroes at all.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:45 pm
@xsplat, Sheryl Sandberg disagrees with you:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/06/18/controlling-interests/
Actually, the bulk of western women disagrees with you:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/08/07/open-hypergamy/
AFBB is an open secret, and it’s women who’ll proudly yell it from every social media at their disposal. If it’s a caricature to you take your concerns to the ladies first.
December 21st, 2014 at 10:56 pm
@Badpainter, re: “Both were successful”
Glad to hear it. I’ve found, in my dotage, that I’m kind of a natural in opening, especially in cold approach banter: assume the woman is interested, i.e. curious, and assume that her interest can be immediately sexualized. I suppose that probably would have been dangerous for me to know when I was young, which is probably why I/we all were told not to do it that way.
I was eating alone again, unusually since I prefer an audience, this evening, nearby but off the reservation/ compound/ enclave of petroleum workers. My eye caught a tall silver-haired woman at the next table over, I caught her, so to speak, directly facing at me, and she proceeded to shrug off her tight evening jacket while still sitting. She didn’t do it gracefully, but struggled girlishly i.e. not arthritically, clearly aware I was enjoying watching, finally winning the battle to display her shirt and what was in it, breathing deeply. Her younger slight male companion, immediately to my left; I could have bumped his elbow, ignored her, his nose stuck in the menu while stirring his fru-fru drinky poo with his index finger and sucking it. He whined in some colonial accent about the selection and prices, in a sort of rumpled Saturday Night Fever garb.
I raised my large eyebrows at her inquisistively, flicked my eyes to the dude, and simultaneously frowned and smirked at her, communicating my wondering at her choice of man. She slumped cartoonishly towards me as if pretending defeat, then put her long left hand up by her long (but handsome) left cheek, showing me the expensive rings on all her fingers except the empty ring finger. I stirred my soup appetizer with my empty ring finger and then sucked it loudly at her. She laughed, and it was a good laugh. I introduced myself. “Oh!” she said, as if either she knew me, or of me, or, I’m not sure, “I’m Leena.” British-y, but not colonial-ly; maybe southern Europe. Short for Alina, as it turned out. “But not very short”; she beat me to it. Apparently one was supposed to know Leena, or of Leena.
“Leena then what?” I childishly gambited, as if it meant leaner than what. She was almost my size, maybe 5’9″, maybe 160 lbs, but it looked better on her. But then my meal arrived, so it was just a name close, and just a first name. Apparently the old gal does karaoke, since dude hissed at her later not to.
December 21st, 2014 at 11:07 pm
@Mike
“Please WAKE UP before it is too late.”
I’d say the same to you, but it’s a waste of my breath. Only complete and total collapse of everything you thought $YOUR_DEITY_OF_CHOICE has awarded you with will have a chance of changing your mind. As a fellow man I hope that never happens to you, but not so you can stay asleep. It’s so you can avoid feeling the pain many of us have gone through to learn the actual truth of the world.
I wish you well, but I hope you’ll understand that just because your beliefs are thousands of years old doesn’t mean everyone else are the ones that need to “wake up”.
December 22nd, 2014 at 12:15 am
Bathsheba was essentially King David’s war bride, and she was good with it. God’s plan too, right?
Mike’s right, the Bible is chock full of Red Pill wisdom for a guy who wants to see it. The problem comes from focusing on what elements of it are flattering to the neglect of the offensive parts.
@Mike, read this:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/12/08/chasing-amy/
As I said, you fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from the realities of Hypergamy because the strength of your convictions.
And honestly, if you come to a full embrace of Red Pill truths, the good, the bad and especially the ugly, and you give up all hope on ever realizing Chirstianized Blue Pill idealisms, your faith will be strengthened in that new paradigm.
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:54 am
@Rollo, we don’t disagree that alpha fucks/beta bucks is a real dynamic that really happens.
And I don’t think we even disagree that it’s not the ONLY thing that happens. You’ve said yourself before that women strive for an alpha provider, and I’m sure every now and then you’ve admitted that such men exist and do get into long term relationships.
So fundamentally we agree on what colors are in the landscape. What we disagree on is the level of contrast and the distribution of colors.
I’m suggesting that your painting is cartoonish – a dramatically reduced color pallate and exagerated contrasts.
It’s NOT an either or thing. There are way more men who get the alpha treatment who are ALSO into long term relationships than you lately seem to let on. And I don’t hear you mention much that there are no differences in womens attitude towards their mates throughout the entire range of the ovulatory cycle when she perceives her man as high value.
And again – making a sharp division between provisioning and being sexually appealing is way to sharp a distinction – so much contrast that it becomes more wrong than right. It’s not that black and white. Yes, in broad strokes there is that contrast. But it’s not that stark, and variables bleed into each other.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:28 am
Ya, same difference. Our true value is unnoticed, and in effect hidden. The metaphor holds well enough. Under appreciated underwear heros.
Some guys really do think that their value to “society” IS heroic, especially as exemplified in their willingness to marry and provide stable familes and work hard. Da-da-DAA! It’s Family Man!
December 22nd, 2014 at 7:01 am
re: “The metaphor holds well enough.”
No. It’s the same as saying that if men were smart enough then they’d realize that ordinary girls are the True Stuck-up Princesses. It’s a wrong metaphor because it presumes that men *ought* to want stuck-up princesses. I refuse to concede that women *ought* to want superheroes.
December 22nd, 2014 at 7:05 am
The metaphor is that women *ought* to want anything at all other than what they want. It’s a metaphor. I’m not suggesting that people literally are heros. I’m suggesting that people think women *ought* to want them.
You seem to be hung up on the hero part, for some reason. There is SOME quality or other that people assume women are too stupid to see. Call it whatever you want. What you call that quality is not my point at all.
Any man who feels undervalued by women is in a way a Peter-Parker-Underwear-Hero, not by virtue of his having any superpowers, but merely by virtue of his considering himself undervalued.
December 22nd, 2014 at 7:38 am
A pretty straightforward example of why alpha fucks/beta bucks is WAYY overblown; most all rock stars and top level male celebrities marry or otherwise pair bond.
It’s not either/or.
There is a really powerful word in the English language. It’s called “and”.
Heartiste has his pet theory that EVERYTHING boils down in the end to confidence. No matter how clearly or in how many different ways you point out to him this amazing word “and”, he literally can not hear it. Confidence AND looks? No! Looks increase confidence, and it’s therefore ONLY confidence. So now he just censors anything that goes against his pet view. He’s that attached to it.
Alpha fucks beta bucks is true. But it’s not ALL that is true. There is also apha bucks.
It’s not true that:
1) Only handsome men are treated by women as Alpha (and it’s women who decide, by their actions, what category men are in, individually. If a woman is giving a man the full alpha treatment, then to her, he is an alpha.)
2) All alphas only want short term relationships or flings.
The extreme view that’s being assumed here relies on both of the above falshoods, and it leads to:
1) men assuming that they are not class mobile, and
2) men not seeing the value of learning to increase charisma, and improve relationships
3) men having no concept of healthy mutually satisfying long term relationships where the man is treated like a fucking king.
So we start with a partial truth, and turn it into a cartoon charicature of how the world actually works, and in so doing harm individual men’s will to progress.
December 22nd, 2014 at 8:22 am
xslpat – “..most all rock stars….”
You seem to suffer from you’re own apex fallacy. “Rock stars” are so few in number that at best they are exceptions to whatever rule you want to discuss.
You as well just say NAWALT and be done with it or provide a better working model.
December 22nd, 2014 at 9:45 am
@ jf12 and Xsplat – This is an argument that should be put in proper context. The most brilliant evolutionary biologists (and other scientists who study human sexuality) on the planet haven’t figured all this out yet. If you keep track of the field, you see that there are major disagreements about many basic issues.
The ideas presented here are best thought of as heuristics. Sure, we have evidence and some theories that seem promising, but that’s about it. AF/BB is a good perspective, but more than that? If you think Rollo’s got scientific certainty here, wake up. This isn’t a lab or a university research center, it’s a fucking blog site. It lags the science – it doesn’t lead it. And the science is still up in the air. That’s a plain fact.
jf12 – You make a lot of speculative statements about the nature of alpha – but real scientists don’t even describe human sexual or group behavior using the term “alpha” at all. They do so for a reason because the alpha behavior of animals doesn’t really map onto much more complex human behaviors well. But even the scientist who first discovered and coined the term “alpha wolf” has revisited his own science and claims there is no such thing as an alpha wolf. Here’s his blog site http://www.davemech.org/news.html If the science about alpha wolves is still up for grabs, perhaps a misappropriation of the term to describe human behavior – by amateurs – isn’t quite as rock solid as some her seem to think? And no, don’t bother playing amateur scientist with me – I don’t do that. I do read a lot of evo biology though and my characterizations of the state of the science are correct, that’s not up for debate.
Gosh, perhaps we don’t have the equivalent of Newtonian physics here after all. Lol.
December 22nd, 2014 at 9:48 am
Xslpat – re:rock stars – and how many of them end up divorced within 5 years of getting married? They are mostly the “alpha fucks” with lots of cash. Thing is, lack of comfort will kill that relationship no matter how alpha he is. Especially if the marriage is between two stars, as is often the story with musicians and actors. In fact, all of the entertainment industry might as well be considered one giant orgy of serial monogamy as mates tend to hop from star to star marrying and divorcing. They are the extreme example of what is becoming the norm for everyone: the 5 to 7 year marriage followed by divorce, rinse, and repeat.
December 22nd, 2014 at 11:46 am
The point isn’t whether rock stars get divorced, and the point isn’t what percentage of the population are rock stars.
I would have thought the point as obvious as the morning sun. How can you not see the morning sun? How can you not see my point?
I’ll repeat. It’s not just alpha-fucks and beta bucks.
It’s ALSO alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
alpha-BUCKS.
Unstop your ears.
alpha-BUCKS.
All men, alphas and betas, tend to pair bond. NOT just betas.
ALL men, alphas and betas, tend to pair bond. NOT just betas.
December 22nd, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Alpha waxes and wanes.. A chick who is blown away by your ‘rock star’, willing to blow you backstage, and become your groupie 1, is a honeymoon phase away from moving on when your licks are no longer new to her (i.e. when she meets the drummer).
Successful, sexually fulfilling, LTR game is reinventing your Alpha again and again.
Alpha dry spell == LTR nuke
Heartbroken rock stars fell into the blue-pill trap, and dared to love the woman the way she ‘told’ him to love her.. by abandoning some of his wildness, carelessness, and opening up, being more beta… Bye-bye Pam Anderson..
Now look at Jim Morrison.. Ok, granted he died young, but still.. He stayed full-on-alpha to the end.. And Pamela Courson put up with all his shit, took care of him above all else, was there for him to the end. And even chased him into the afterlife.
Granted, these were two fucked up individuals.. but still, it illustrates the value of staying alpha.
December 22nd, 2014 at 12:45 pm
@TuffLuv:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/26/the-ballad-of-clark-kent/
December 22nd, 2014 at 12:48 pm
Xsplat, you can complain all you’d like about AF/BB being a caricature, but don’t think it’s the manosphere who’s drawing the cartoons.
December 22nd, 2014 at 12:53 pm
Rollo, yes or no – are there Alphas out there who pair bond and enjoy long term relationships?
Yes or no, are there alphas out there who support their wives and children?
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Ah yes.. had read.. exactly.
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:26 pm
@xsplat
Yes and no.. I was married to a hottie for 19 years. I dominated her. I fought for my right to be male.. then, 15 years in, I capitulated.. I became Clark Kent.. I thought those sacrifices would be vastly appreciated.. forever. I was dead wrong.
The important thing I think you are missing.. Alphas are not a breed. Alpha, is not everlasting. True Alpha, imo, is really about the burden of performance, as Rollo puts it..
When your chick tells you to do more housework.. fuck that go change the oil in all five cars, while she sits on her ass with the sink full of dishes.
When she tells you to cook more even though you suck at it.. fuck that go take up a martial arts class.. Show her your moves when she’s in a better mood, or better yet, while she’s cooking.
Women will not be told what they want. They must be shown.
I can hear it.. shiit.. treat your woman like that, she’ll leave your ass.. NO, she won’t. She might bitch and complain cuz she cooks and cleans. But as long as you are interesting, she won’t leave. I GUARANTEE you she will leave you if you capitulate to her demands, then spend the rest of your time trying to relax.
Like Rollo has said.. a man, focused on his own best interests. That really is Alpha, but the burden of performance never goes away (except possibly when she gets fat and ugly). Meaning you need new tricks. Tricks that don’t fit her ideals, but yours. Even if she scoffs and ridicules your martial arts.. just say.. really? Jenna at the dojo thinks I’m a natural.. OOPS! you alpha mother-fucker.
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Yes, tuffluv, you mention basic red pill stuff. Stuff that we agree on. Stuff that I’ve written about myself. I talk about keeping a woman in aquisitive mode, which some might consider getting the alpha treatment. A lot of it does have to do with boundaries. And it’s an ongoing project.
But yes and no is equivocating.
Unless I’m reading Rollo wrong, lately he’s been leaning in his essays and comments to a different view than he seemed to start with. Lately he seems to be making more of a drastic K and R selection distinction, and implying that if you are what he terms an alpha then by definition you have no interest in pair bonding, simply because you don’t need to.
So I need a yes or no answer. Are there alphas who pair bond? However temporarily. Can a person be alpha and at the same time be pair bonded?
If the answer is yes, then we agree.
It’s not alpha fucks and beta bucks. It’s ALSO alpha fucks, and beta bucks, AND alpha bucks. Alphas can ALSO be providers.
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Xsplat – sure there are “alphas” out here taking care of their kids. But you are missing the point. If they are indeed alpha, their wives are with them FOR the alpha. The bucks is a bonus.
With a beta bucks guy, the ONLY thing he has going for him is the dollars and cents.
Ideally the woman’s idea of “fried ice” is an alpha with money that is “nice” to her but a “bad boy” to the rest of the world. Since most men don’t fit that ideal, most women have to make trade offs when selecting a mate. In all cases when you are the target of such a selection, you want her to choose you because she sees you as her “alpha” over seeing you as an ATM, housekeeper, and built in baby sitter. Does she like your six figure income? Hell yeah! But you don’t want her to choose you based on it alone. Right?
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Tedd, I’m not missing any point at all. In fact you’re thinking that I am is likely just another example of the very black and white thinking that I’m talking about.
10,000 times yes, I agree with the alpha fucks beta bucks distinction.
Get it? Or should I agree 10,000 times more?
But that’s not ALL that’s going on.
There is nuance, and also OTHER options.
It’s not JUST those two things.
That is MY point.
The other point was long ago agreed with.
You seem to assume that if I’m not with em I’m against em. It’s not that black and white.
December 22nd, 2014 at 1:51 pm
And look, men make very grave relationship errors when they assume that finances can not be an aid to maintaining genuine lust and aquisitive mode and alpha treatment. Define what behaviours women show that prove she is treating her man like an alpha, and use that empirical evidence as the real test. It’s not what she says, it’s what she does.
A big reason men have a difficult time maintaining aquisitive mode is that they lose hand. Financial hand.
It’s an ALPHA tool to maintain hand. A tool that causes orgasms and blow jobs, and empirical outward signs that are not in any way distinguishable from outward signs caused by facial symmetry.
Men really struggle with understanding that, because we are simply not wired that way. A womans wallet does not make our dick hard. But a man’s wallet CAN have a sexual effect on a woman, depending on circumstances and how he uses it. I’m not just saying a wealthy sperg is going to get women wet, it’s not that black and white. I’m saying that the careful use of finances to gain and maintain hand is a valuable psychological ploy to maintain hand, which directly relates to how sexual she FEELS towards you.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Women are hypergamous and go for the best they can get. So she’s going to choose me for SOMETHING. Somethings.
I’m fine if money is a variable in why the girl chooses me. The money is a major reflection on my character. It took brains and ambition and perseverance and social skills to earn my wealth.
A hottie was once asked why she married the old man. Her answer shut everybody up. “Because he’s rich and hung like a horse.”
I doubt the man felt slighted or underapreciated.
We bring everything we can to the table. There is no shame in bringing money. It CAN help. Poor people get upity and jealous, because they can’t take any pride in something that they don’t have. I’ve heard again and again from guys who’ve had periods of both wealth and poverty – money CAN make a very, very big difference.
And I’m also tired of having to tell the same stories over and over. I’ve only been relatively wealthy for 4 years or so, and have a long history of doing well with attractive young women being flat broke – so broke I regularly had to cut my own hair. So I don’t rely on money at all.
AND.
And. That magical word. AND.
Not either or.
AND.
And money helps.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:05 pm
Using money to aid attraction does not CAUSE the beta bucks side of the equation.
The opposite. It helps to cause the women to give all the measurable signs of treating the man as the alpha, and to engender real lust and real passion and real devotion.
AND
It can be used in ways that don’t cause attraction.
See?
See how that works?
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:11 pm
@xsplat
I see what you’re saying.. I think maybe this all goes back to not clearly defining alpha.
We all know..
Alpha: that guy who chicks just want to fuck, and that’s usually all they want from him.. It’s no secret. He’s a natural. It’s usually just physical. We all know we can’t aspire to be him. He is gifted with women, even when he says nothing. And somehow also has the fortitude to relish this (confusing) carousel of female attention. He’s built for it, mentally and physically.
This guy would have a hard time needing, wanting, or maintaining an LTR, imo. If he did go for the family and kids.. he’d probably fuck it up at some point, by fucking a mistress, or leaving the relationship, beating his wife for shit testing him, etc..
I know guys like this who were prudes in their heyday, who settled into long relationships and families. These guys coulda been Alpha, by this definition, but they weren’t. Then there are those who ‘were’ this type of alpha, and then got a belly, and their hair fell out, and so ‘then’ they settled down. These guys fall into the alternate definition of Alpha below, which any one of us can be, at any given time.
Alpha: a state of being, or presence, that covertly attracts females to a male, specifically because they subconsciously perceive him as a SUPERIOR man.
So, with this second definition, the answer to your question is definitely, ‘yes’.
When my wife fell for me, I didn’t have a pot to piss in, nor did she know anything about my prospects in life. We rode the infatuation, young lust, desire to breed train, and I KNOW it’s because I was alpha as fuck at the time, in HER EYES.
Personally, I was never a pick up artist. Not into one-nighters. I always preferred a hot girlfriend I could fuck repeatedly. I’m of fairly slight build, but tall, ripped, and a natural at nearly all sports, + a performing guitarist. I had my tools.. But I didn’t want easy lays.. I wanted a DEVOTED WOMAN. I wanted a woman to prove me wrong, and show me that NAWALT (like my former girlfriends).
Therefore – I was Alpha (by second definition only), and I opted for kids and family, and was very happy with that decision, and I was faithful.
I think if Rollo is making that point, it’s probably based on that hard first definition of what an Alpha is.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:16 pm
xslpat – “See how that works?”
Umm…so what?
NAALT (Not All Alphas Are Like That), I always thought that was implied.
Money by itself indicates nothing but potential for material comfort. Which seems to be a positive generally but indicative of neither Alpha nor Beta. Kinda of like height, looks, intelligence and physique.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:22 pm
My apprentice/business partner is in the top 1 percent of attractive males. He is one definition of alpha, in that he neither needs nor wants pair bonding and can get laid with multiple women every week.
But if that is the definition of alpha, then spell it out and let it be known.
Because it’s rather useless definition.
Like you said, every man is only alpha because one or more women perceives him to be. He may be perceived that way by 50 women in a room, or by 1 in a city. It may have been instant attraction or built up over days or even months. Is he getting treated like an alpha by a woman? Then to THAT woman, that’s what he is to her.
Men CAN and DO learn to get that treatment. We don’t have to be born in the top 1% of looks. We can STILL get that exact same treatment. Better even. Far better.
Very very few men really know the depths of the alpha treatment – just how far a woman will go. Most men have never even dreamed of it. Not just regular devotionals such as taking off your shoes every time you come home, blow jobs every morning and regular ass-hole licking, not just blow jobs in taxi-cabs, but risking life and limb for the man. Giving over her heart and soul. I’ve seen it, and with more than one woman. And I’m short, bald, and ugly.
Alpha is as what alpha receives from women. It doesn’t have to be from a huge percentage of women. It just has to be from women – preferably hot and young.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:30 pm
And of course a guy can even learn to have multiple women treat him like this, all knowing of and even knowing each other. Year after year.
Alpha is not a demographic of of guys who limit themselves to one night stands.
December 22nd, 2014 at 2:57 pm
In fact I hereby propose a new definition of what makes a man alpha:
It is how he is treated.
We can measure how he is treated in two ways:
1) By what percentage of women would fuck him with little resistance
2) By what behaviors of total devotion any particular woman regularly does show him. Behaviors such as
a) cooking and cleaning, including regularly asking the man what he wants to eat, and cleaning with joy, as if the duty is a devotional
b) initiating sex and blowjobs
c) public displays of how proud she is of her man
d) regularly telling the man that she loves him
e) Initiating little greeting and parting rituals that are meant to convey love.
f) Risking her wellbeing for the man
g) Putting up with infidelities even when they deeply pain her
h) Going against the advice of all friends and family regarding leaving the man
and so on.
I posit that the 2nd definition is the only really valuable definition, because it’s something men can learn. We can alter ourselves and our environment to get the best possible alpha treatment – treatment better than kings and rock stars receive. From genuine hotties of very high sexual market value.
December 22nd, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Xsplat – ok I get your point better now. However, I’ll take genuine lust over any combination of attractive traits hands down. I certainly won’t quit my job to ensure my wife is with me because she thinks I’m hot stuff. But she also showed some very raw and obvious desire for me before she knew my last name, let alone my income.
So I do agree with you that there is nuance to relationships. I’m sure my provisioning is a great comfort to my wife. But I’d bet you my next paycheck it doesn’t in any way make her want to fuck me. In fact, I was laid off for six months not too long ago and our sex life didn’t change at all. Our stress went up, and it was a tough period, but it didn’t kill her attraction to me at all.
So I suppose a guy could see his income as an attractor, and as a little added flavor I don’t have an issue with it. But, first and foremost for me is raw sexual attraction. I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince a woman she is hot for me. (Desire is not negotiable. That was a hard lesson for me to learn…) And if I had to choose between sexual attraction and financial provisioning to base my marriage on, I’m shooting for attraction hands down. (Tried the other way first marriage, which is probably why I’m on marriage #2)
As far as black and white goes, it is in my nature to categorize and neatly box everything I can. Surely I recognize the nuances in my marriage, but I guide it using those high level black and white views, and adjust accordingly on the fly. Even though I like neat categories, even I recognize the need for a bit of flexibility when it comes to individual women and how I relate to them.
I guess I don’t understand where you think the issue is. In the macro scale AF/BB fits. If the discussion gets down to an individual couple, then nuance is necessary. There isn’t a lot of individual counselling here, so I’m not surprised nuance isn’t normal subject matter. There are other places for that, but I fear they are going the way of the “purple” pill these days…
December 22nd, 2014 at 3:19 pm
@Tedd, ya, people don’t seem to easily grasp the fact that money can increase lust.
No matter how many different ways it’s stated, men seem completely unable to grasp it. For is MUST be negotiated desire, and CAN’T be possible for wealth to increase actual lust.
http://xsplat.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/women-orgasm-more-for-wealthy-men/
December 22nd, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Xsplat – in some cases sure. But brother, I’m never gonna have the kind of money it takes to generate that kind of lust. And all things being equal, even if I did have that kind of cash, I’d want and expect straight up attraction from a woman before I would let something like money bias her opinion. Much better that she find out I’m stinking rich AFTER the hook is set so to speak.
That being said, I’m more than happy to enjoy a little buffer/boost to my “value” because I have a decent income. But I would never under any circumstance use that income as an attractant, or depend on it to keep a woman interested. Sure it’s bait, but the fish I’d catch with that bait wouldn’t be very tasty.
December 22nd, 2014 at 4:12 pm
If you’ve navigated the Sexual Marketplace for long, chances are you’ve already begun to sense when women are in the estrus state. The signs are subtle, but we’re biologically programmed to pick them up. She’ll stare up at you with her big dilated doe eyes. Her body will orient itself towards you, and if you display the correct combination of alpha mannerisms she will in turn carry herself with the biologically submissive manner that comes naturally.
We are all beasts. We must act like it if we wish to succeed in this dog-eat-dog world.
December 22nd, 2014 at 4:19 pm
You guys are still missing the point. No one here believes that moral virtue is synonymous with alpha or even that it can possibly inspire a woman’s arousal in and of itself. If you read my previous posts carefully, I think you will see there is much more to what I am saying than that.
Many of you do not realize that you have chosen the quick and easy path to alpha but there is another. The journey is much longer but the destination is well worth the trip. The type of man who choses this path is the rarest of all men and the most desirable/arousing to women. Like the natural alpha, his desirability is merely a side effect of who and what he is. He does not need to imitate any other man’s sexual strategy. But unlike the natural alpha, his attributes cannot be imparted genetically or successfully mimicked by other men. This is a mold only one man ever was or ever will be born into. For all others, it can only be chosen.
I know. I know. Most of you will say I am deluded, still “plugged in”, just holding on to BP fantasies. And that is fine. But you will be wrong.
Consider King David. As Rollo mentioned, his life along with many others in the Bible illustrates profound RP truths but he was still “a man after God’s own hart.” Unlike Michael Angelo’s depiction of him, the Bible does not indicate that David was particularly good looking either. He is actually described in his youth
as a relatively short, ginger, shaggy haired young man who smelled of sheep. But his faith made him bold and fearless to the point of apparent insanity. David had hoards of women practically tormenting his first wife with competition anxiety long before he was King. His adultery with Bathsheba and betrayal and murder of Uriah, for which he was punished severely by God, resulted from the temptation brought by this situation finally overwhelming him in a moment of weakness during a spiritually idle period of his life. The point here is that the sexual promiscuity/adultery was an effect of his desirability to women, not the cause. Therefore, to correctly understand the most profound RP lesson, we must look elsewhere.
Take Joseph (son of Jacob/Israel) as another example. Joseph was far more righteous than David in his behavior. His life was even an archetype and foreshadowing of Christ’s. However, this certainly did not deter women from lusting after him. In fact, a certain woman found poor Joseph much too arousing for his own good. Potiphar’s wife practically rapped HIM. Joseph even ran away from her to escape the temptation to sin against God. Naturally, she accused him of trying to rape her and he wound up in prison. Out of all of her husband’s servants though, Joseph was the one she could not resist. Women always want what they cannot have.
True men of God are not of this world and are able to overcome all of its carnal desires, including those of women. Their minds often tend to be “elsewhere”, making them appear aloof, disinterested and mysterious to women. Hypergamy interprets this behavior as a DHV whether you want to believe it or not. It does not and cannot comprehend his apparent lack of interest and essentially has to assume it is due to his options. I only say this because I know from personal experience.
December 22nd, 2014 at 4:36 pm
@ Mike – Indeed, cult members will respond to members who behave like cult leaders. This is very true, thanks for that.
December 22nd, 2014 at 4:49 pm
True men of God, or no true Scotsman?
December 22nd, 2014 at 5:16 pm
@ Rollo, what about denying the antecedent?
December 22nd, 2014 at 5:34 pm
i.e. Your basic argument seems to be: If one is a man, he is not genuinely righteous (a man of God). So, all I have to do is provide one example of a true man of God (true Scottsman). I have provided two.
December 22nd, 2014 at 5:43 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
December 22nd, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Mike – “i.e. Your basic argument seems to be: If one is a man, he is not genuinely righteous (a man of God). So, all I have to do is provide one example of a true man of God (true Scottsman). I have provided two.”
But your two examples are from a time and society far removed from ours. Many men is the ‘sphere believe that being a man as you describe was once possible, but in modern society its a losing bet. I get that suffering and going against the norm is supposed to be part of the journey (Raised a Catholic but left the Church in my early 20’s) but it’s gonna be a very hard sell to a modern young man.
“You can spend your whole life fighting the tide and be righteous, or you can go with the flow and still get much of what you want out of life.” I’m sorry to say, a life of sacrifice isn’t going to be well received by most folks in the modern west. And so few people show any long term thinking when it comes to life, do you truly expect them to be concerned with the after
Life?
December 22nd, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Or: I say true men of God are righteous. So, Glen mentions cult leaders (implying there are no true men of God because cult leaders are not righteous) and Rollo thinks I made the “no true Scottsman” fallacy.
Rediculess.
@Tedd, not actually trying to prove anything here.
December 22nd, 2014 at 6:12 pm
Ridiculous.
December 22nd, 2014 at 6:25 pm
Mike, your conviction does you credit, but I don’t disagree with you on principle, I disagree with you in practice.
If you knew a guy who sent off a good man to die in a war of his own making just so he could take his wife because she was smoking hot (who also took public showers in the sight of him I might add), would you think that’s pretty fucked up?
We’d call that black knighting today – especially if the guy had his pick of hundreds of other hot women who want to get with him. Even most of the manosphere would call him a Dude-Bro Shitlord Douchebag, right?
In a Red Pill frame we’d see that this woman was following along with a war bride script, but now what if I said, nope, this guy is cool, and the woman is blameless in her own accomplice. All of the fucked up shit I told you is sin is all cool in this instance.
You see it’s all about context. When you paint the target around the arrow you’ll always get a bullseye.