I actually had another post warming up for this week, but I received the following correspondence from a reader whom I’ve promised to keep anonymous. I don’t do ‘guest posts’ on Rational Male, however I do repost some comments and email I receive on occasion, and in light of the recent discussions on the male concept of love and shit tests I thought I’d let this stand on its own today:
Rollo,
I know it’s been a long time since you posted your piece, “Soldiers”, but it struck a nerve with me. I’m not sure what kind of new insight (if any) you can get from my experiences, but I left the Air Force 6 years ago and have found the transition to civilian life much more difficult than I had expected. After reading your post and reflecting, I also realized that the values the military instilled into me set me up for a lot of difficulty with women down the road. I only wish I had something like your blog as a resource when I was 21.
I went to one of this country’s military academies at the age of 17. I am 31 now and am still friends with some of the guys I went through basic training with. The basic training experience was 6 weeks long, and physically and mentally very tough. At the academies this environment gets drawn out (in modified form) through the entire first year, where we are plebes and function as sort of second-class citizens beneath all upper classmen. There is a lot of adversity, a lot of animosity directed at you in such a system, but you come to realize later on it’s a kind of “tough love”. These experiences forced us all to bond with each other, and help each other out through some very rough times.
I spent too many years of my life hoping that I could find a relationship with a woman that would be on par with the relationship I had with my male military friends in terms of honesty, loyalty, trust, forthrightness. I ended and/or sabatoged a number of relationships with women because I was looking for this kind of “love” I had for my brothers and could never find it. I had always assumed that I would find a form of “love” that rivaled all other relationships I’d had previously. Loyalty was (and is) a major virtue for me, and I never felt like I was finding that with the women I dated. In the military I developed a pretty keen eye for bullshit, and every relationship I had with women, even the best ones, I found my bullshit alarms going off at some point. Now I realize what was tripping my bullshit alarm—hypergamy. Hypergamy is directly opposed to the concept of loyalty. I could tell when women were being shifty.
Part of the reason I could tell is because I had actually swallowed a version of the red pill as a cadet, though I’d never actually heard the term before. A few of my friends are what they call “naturals”. They helped to undo a lot of the extreme blue pill notions that I had been raised with.
Years of movies and TV and guidance from authority figures had trained me to look for “that special girl”. One of my friends in particular introduced the idea of being “kind of an ass” to girls, and only showing the nice side later (because I really was a nice kid). Never lead with your nice side, he advised me.
We also fucked a lot of girls with boyfriends. I saw some of the most disloyal and underhanded behavior out of women during that time. I remember when my friend was urging me to make a move on a girl we’d been talking to in a bar for some time. I said, “oh she has a boyfriend”. He asked, “well did she bring him up in conversation? Unless she brings it up it’s fair game. And you don’t address it either. Don’t say anything about the boyfriend, just keep the conversation elsewhere for the entire night.” It worked. Tactics like these worked over and over again, and while I enjoyed the hell out of this new found power, I was becoming more uncomfortable about the nature of women. It’s only due to my sense of morality and loyalty to other men in arms that I didn’t fuck the wife of an army guy who was deployed. I felt too disgusted with myself to go through with it… she, however, didn’t seem the least bit troubled by her marriage.
Fast forward to my adult life, I decided that I should be looking for a good woman to settle down with. See, I had never swallowed the Red Pill completely—I resisted the harsher implications of it. I told myself, NAWALT, and that I just needed to look for a good girl. The One. I understood so much that so many other guys don’t get, but I was still holding out hope for The One. I figured I would find this One at some point in grad school. After all, this is where all the smart, motivated, good girls are, right?
In two relationships the girls wanted to be exclusive with me. I said yes quickly, because exclusivity was what I wanted too. It wasn’t too long after that that my bullshit alarms got set off. One girl, leading into Christmas break, said she was going to a techno show in a city about an hour away from our school. I was planning on studying for a final, so I didn’t bother trying to go. As the date neared I realized I felt comfortable about the final and I wanted to go out that night. I asked to go with her—she said no. And this is where I could see the hamster frantically spinning its wheel.
All her reasons were obvious bullshit. I know when a girl is seeing another guy, because I’ve been the other guy. I know what the stories are like. I ended it. I was heartbroken. I wondered constantly whether I had made the right call. I missed her desperately, and I constantly questioned whether my radar had been off. My male friends (now thoroughly blue-pill, as I was attending a liberal civilian grad school) told me I was overreacting and being paranoid and jealous and not respecting her space, blah blah blah… A whole year later a girl I was friends with let slip that my ex actually was meeting another guy in the city, and fucked him the day after I dumped her.
No surprise—but I was quite upset that a few other girls I was “friends” with had known and never told me. They could have saved me a lot of grief. But then again, they were women—I don’t quite get it, but it’s like all the girls were sticking up for each other and covering for each other, even though they weren’t really close friends. It’s almost as if they felt they needed to cover up the tactics that women use, and keep the men from knowing about them—as though there was a driving need they had to keep men in the dark as to the true nature of women.
In fact, I have never been steered in the right direction in relationships by any woman. And this will bring me around to my next point—the feminine dominated civilian environment—especially academia.
The second grad school relationship followed a path that was remarkably similar to my first—in fact, looking back, I have had three major relationships, with girls who wanted to be exclusive, and they have ended because the girls were becoming involved with other men.
University life was especially difficult to adjust to. There was a lot less voicing of opinions and a lot more concern over offending others—that was one of the first things I noticed. I also noticed that many of the men seemed timid compared with my male military friends. See, this grad school was almost an extension of high school.
Approval by the females was very important, you could not anger them. The men were incredibly concerned with their popularity, and with getting to know the right people. I figured out early on that pissing off one of the cuter girls could lead to social death. And even apart from the girls, the men didn’t seem to act like men I had known.
There was a hierarchy in the school, and these young men followed the rules of this hierarchy. They would not challenge any male who was deemed to be “socially superior”. This blew my mind, because my military friends would never have accepted such a thing. We had a group, a crew, and we could always stand our ground, and if push ever came to shove then we might have to fight someone—if it meant protecting our dignity. I also figured out that physically standing my ground wasn’t socially acceptable in this environment.
I realize I may sound like some sort of thuggish asshole with a persecution complex, but I was responding to some blatant disrespect that shocked me. In the military, the men I knew wouldn’t openly disrespect or ridicule a man—unless they were looking for a fight. Actually, in the military I recall a lot more general respect between the men than I found in grad school. The grad school men felt like women to me—gossipy, petty. Overall, the male virtues that I had learned in the military became unimportant in the culture I found myself in.
Other values took priority, and I think this may be the Feminine Imperative you spoke of. Conflict was always to be avoided. Drastic effort must be taken to avoid offending others. Most of the men were willing to undercut each other for just a chance to be with one of the prettier girls. And the pretty girls—they walked on water, constantly had a harem of beta males tending to them. Actually, I watched several of these girls cheat on one boyfriend only to begin dating his friend. The social power of the prettier women cannot be overstated. I dated and dumped two pretty girls in a row (for the reasons I stated above) and quickly found myself on the outside of most social events.
I saw a lot of truth in your thoughts about military men. Some military men are some of the most Alpha dudes I’ve ever met. My military friends changed me from a dyed-in-the-wool beta to an Alpha that could fuck other dudes girlfriends with far too much ease, and stand up for himself (a modified pseudo-alpha, obviously I wouldn’t need to write this letter if I was a true natural alpha). But a lot of military men, Alpha though they are, have not actually swallowed the red pill completely. Somehow, I’d like to be able to get that message across, because there’s still a lot of NAWALT and One-itis in the military culture, even though it is a predominantly alpha culture. I am just grateful that I came across your blog.
After two failed relationships I was feeling like shit. I had tried looking for The One, and tried to have an Open and Honest relationship with lots of Communication and it failed dramatically. Now that I’ve found your blog I’ve come to terms with a lot of what had been plaguing me about women. I’m back to spinning plates, and I really do think it’s the best option for any male in today’s society. I’m still a little bitter about these red pill truths, but I’m no longer trying to fight against them.
I have a good correspondence with men in the military and it’s one of the more humbling aspects of writing what I do. I’ve had men on deployment send me pictures of their worn copy of The Rational Male on the barracks bed and I get chills. I’m glad I can help these guys transition from the idealism they have in the military to the often tragic Red Pill realities they encounter when they’re discharged.
This reader makes an interesting point I hadn’t considered in the Soldiers posts; there is a modicum of loyalty and respect men develop amongst themselves (even between different branches of the military) while enlisted that they believe will be relatable and respected by the women they encounter after their time in the military. They believe that the idealistic male concept of love (and in this case love for their military brothers) is the same concept women will share when they enter civilian life.
Young men entering into military life out of high school have (in most cases) 4 years to learn an idealism based on the Old Set of Books, is it any wonder they become suicidal after they are forced to come to terms with the disillusionment of that idealism in the face of the feminine-primary reality they enter when they’re discharged?
January 29th, 2015 at 1:22 pm
It sounds like this email was from a former inmate of Colorado Springs. I too am a service academy graduate and can attest to strikingly similar experiences. The major difference is that I opted out of grad school and decided to work in a male-centric environment. I stand by this decision; while I am poorer, I am immeasurably happier than I would be in a feminized academic setting. It also gives me a no-fucks-given attitude that makes spinning plates easy and carefree.
I’m in agreement that while the military is one of the last bastions of masculinity, it does much to imbue very young men with Beta thinking. Not only that, but the military also incentivizes marriage to the detriment of everyone (but mostly the young servicemen). Having known three brothers that took their own lives, at least two of them were having “personal problems” that amounted to women they’d gotten mixed up with. I don’t think that was the only issue, but it was definitely a contributing factor.
January 29th, 2015 at 2:41 pm
@ Glenn
gt90345 at yahoo dot com
January 29th, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Ugh… so much emotion reading that post. I sent one of brother’s friends (5 years younger and only know him through facebook) to your site and Dalrock’s after a string of girls he went with (and fell in love with) cheated on him, while he was deployed and while here. He’s military and a very good guy. It’s almost like I could see the effects of what this man in the email just described – even through something like facebook.
My husband reminded me of some movie that was made that relates this kind of thing, Jarhead… I’ve never seen it but he has and says it captures the essence this post perfectly and with much more devastation.
It’s so horrible to admit that this is just true, as a woman… hypergamy is always there… I really do believe women can transcend it with our choices, but to think it’s not real or applies to each of us (as women) is false. :( yuck
January 29th, 2015 at 3:42 pm
What if women, individually, were independent of men for provisioning and financial support? More and more women are earning more than men in the job market. If women didn’t need men to pay their bills, how would this affect womens’ dating and husband selection behavior? Women would choose to be in relationships with men entirely based on looks? Women could be “married” to the ultimate alpha male (and even the ultimate beta male for provisioning), the Government. If a single woman desired to have a baby, they could merely go to sperm bank and shop for the best genes. Women could just focus on the top males for relationships without even marrying.
This is being seen in the black and other poor communities where women with multiple children from different fathers are on welfare. Government is their beta provider essentially. Is this affecting how these women choose to have relationships and children with? Knowing that they can get financial support without a man? Welfare even incentivizes women to have more children, the more children they have, the more checks they get.
The reality is that the federal government can fund its social and welfare programs independently – that is, without the need for taxation. The federal government actually operates under a paradigm called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) regarding how it finances its operations.
See these links:
http://mythfighter.com/2013/01/23/mmt-to-make-your-case-begin-with-what-people-already-believe/
http://mythfighter.com
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
http://moslereconomics.com
http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com
http://neweconomicperspectives.org
http://stephaniekelton.com
January 29th, 2015 at 4:06 pm
You know, the lack of loyalty due to hypergamy would almost be understandable if it were just the hotties doing it. Really. I can almost buy not being able to resist all the opportunities they’re going to have because they might actually manage to lock one down if they can be sensible and not be a bitch.
Like if you’re an HB9, you can have every single good thing this world has to offer by taking care of yourself and being a decent person. The opportunities will just come to you. I can’t imagine what that’s like compared to the laundry list of shit even the hottest guy has to pull off to have all the best stuff in this life. Never mind the impossibly long list only slightly above average or average guys have to pull off.
But it’s when you watch average to kinda cute chicks — straight up HB5s or maybe HB6s — branch swinging with wild abandon (away from guys they really could be genuinely happy with), hopping on every hawt cock that comes along, and generally slutting it up thinking she’s gonna land Chad Thundercock and keep him “next time for sure” or “after my career is going” or “after I turn 30″… that’s delusional.
And keeping a Plan B waiting in the wings is even more delusional. Yeah divorce law works out in her favor blah blah blah… she’s never going to be happy with him or any of the betas that come after him. Ever. It’s like if I wanted to try and craft the perfect system to tease women with false hope yet leave them miserable in the end, I wouldn’t have to raise a finger. It’s already sitting right in front of us.
It’s half the reason I don’t get angry at women for hypergamy really anymore. They will wind up miserable in the end. I don’t have to do a damn thing for that to happen.
January 29th, 2015 at 4:15 pm
This point I made on the first page bears repeating again:
—
There do exist women who are loyal. Commonalities to these women: they grew up in traditional, typically religious settings with parents who stayed together, whose fathers were strong enough to command the daughters’ respect and adoration. Then they were raised and trained from birth accordingly; never allowed to become feral. Then they married young and remained married to that guy through thick and thin. Many posters here can point to their parents who stayed married for life as examples of what that looks like. Some can even point to siblings and friends who married well and are still married today as further examples.
But that’s the thing: the women who actually absorbed their training are just about all married off now, that is the nature of the beast. For the rest of us, there are the hypergamous scraps. Understand now that even if you find that woman who you think might be loyal, there is still the risk that she will turn on you.
—
Christians claim a divorce rate of 38% like it’s something to be proud of; for Catholics, that is 28%. Many Catholics are actually proud of those numbers. As in “see Catholic women are not so bad, why don’t you marry one?” (disclosure: I am Catholic.) How many of the ones who stay together are actually content together? So even if the divorce rate isn’t as high, there is still the likelihood the typical husband will be shut off from marital contentment as the wives who stay in make it about the kids. So a typical man still has far less than a 50% chance he’ll find himself in a marriage he is satisfied with. Many women on CAF simply can’t be bothered with looking at it from the men’s view. As usually happens in real life.
January 29th, 2015 at 4:32 pm
@Random Angeleno
Yeah, no. Church I was in as a teenager, the chicks were all partying hard, jumping from hawt guy to hawt guy, drinking, and smoking as soon as they could. Come Sunday they were pointed at as the examples of how I should behave, but I knew what was really going on. I was turned down by all of the ones in my peer group (for more alpha guys, naturally) who were all unwed and pregnant by their first year of college at the latest. No shit. Blew my mind when it happened. My sister was the only chick anywhere near my age at that church who waited until later than 18 to get knocked up. (Obviously didn’t help my prospects any, heh)
Churches aren’t even a good place to find women.
January 29th, 2015 at 4:53 pm
No, I’m not white knighting or blue pilling here.
” A man’s only option nowadays is to be a ruthless player or go celibate.”
Not. I’m neither. Even though AWALT, some women are much better at controlling their hypergamy than others. The urge often passes.
I coined the term microcephaly (thinking with your little head) as the male equivalent of hypergamy.
Microcephaly doesn’t care if she is with another man, or if doing her violates various ethical principles like golden and platinum rules.
What triggers this microcephaly? High HB (SMV). Same as with hypergamy.
Regardless of ethical or hypocrisy considerations (condemning expression of hypergamy), there are good practical reasons not to consider a high HB as a compelling reason to fuck a woman. If you choose to go for hot sluts, don’t complain that what you got was a slut who tore your heart out. Not going for the sex right away is a good way to screen for RMV.
I’ve noticed other commenters backing my suggestion that a high HB in a woman is neither necessary nor desirable per se for anything besides a P&D. If P&D is all you’re capable of anymore, go ahead and knock yourself out with women who are incapable of long term emotional bonding.
Otherwise, consider these ideas:
sudden
January 27th, 2015 at 8:09 pm
You don’t have to call her the petty conniving slut she is but you can explain that your standards don’t begin and end with beauty, and that given your level of skill you’ve never had to concern yourself with going without simply because you demand some basic level of decency and class from those you bed…
He cares not that a woman of loose character and looser legs will simply get a different cock. What matters is that she will not get his, because that is the true prize…
It’s the men who realize that women come and go and aren’t willing to compromise their value for another notch that are actually waging the war against the white knights who condone female behavior and the black knights who merely mimic their hypergamy.
• Thoroughbred
January 23rd, 2015 at 11:05 pm
Absolutely not… Couldn’t care less about eye candy. In fact, there are way many more intangibles for me than just a woman’s looks. The broad with Rushdie – Padma Lakshi – is indeed hot, but christ it was Rushdie’s 4th marriage and it only lasted 3 years.
There have been women I’ve been quite fond of and very sexually attracted to, who by objective standards others would consider quite plain. But something about them made them incredibly sexy. It may have been the way they smelled, or the way they carried themselves, or their attitude about life, or most often just their femininity.
A plain woman who has feminine grace and innocence is far sexier to me than the most beautiful Vegas bar slut.
• jf12
January 21st, 2015 at 5:39 pm
@Sun Wukong, re: “[bottoms] that I’m genuinely attracted to”
Maybe my standards are too low, but physical attraction is way too easy (way, way, way too easy …). As deti keeps reminding, most girls are fine enough that way. A little curve, a little wiggle, a little skin, …; it doesn’t take much is what I’m saying.
But even the mental/emotional attraction is easy, which is I think why I’m beta. A little giggle, a little flirt, a little togetherness, …; I really need to keep my distance. More than I have been. Them bare hooks is sharp-sharp.
January 29th, 2015 at 5:38 pm
@Rollo … “Deti’s right…”
When is Deti ever not right? If anyone is new to these blogs in the manosphere, whenever you see a posting from the deti, you know its going to be accurate, useful, and full of real wisdom.
Something I’ve decided is indisputable fact after paying attention for about a year. Thank you for your comments Deti, whoever you are.
January 29th, 2015 at 5:46 pm
He’s just a dude dreaming of the Sand Hills.
January 29th, 2015 at 9:19 pm
@BuenaVista…
No…. there is something different & deeply profound about whatever Deti says – mere statements that ring with so much truth and beauty that do not come from us mere commoners (oops – commenters lol).
In our generation, where almost everyone has a blog and things to say, Deti (not from our generation I’m almost certain) has had a blog created FOR him – just to capture the comments and wisdom he’s given as gifts for those who pay attention.
Check this out… https://detination.wordpress.com/who-is-deti/
This is not a normal commenter, this is someone who is a gift, a gem to society, if only they would listen.
January 29th, 2015 at 9:29 pm
@Rollo – “And Brad Pitt has become the poster boy for the progression of a former Alpha becoming a supplicating Beta as a result.
He went from being People Magazine’s sexiest man alive to being a dancing monkey chump of the feminine imperative.”
Couldn’t have been said better!!!
January 29th, 2015 at 10:06 pm
When I was a kid, I thought that all cats were female and all dogs were male.
This was an early intuition of the nature of men and women and how they love. But as I got older the social brainwashing hosed that.
Around the same time I saw a big smokestack belching into the sky and told my father that I was worried about that messing the air up. He said no, it just disappears.
It’s interesting and disturbing how basic and obvious truths to even a child get completely obfuscated by cultural conditioning. And we come to deny the evidence of our own senses.
January 29th, 2015 at 10:15 pm
The aging spinster cat lady former CC rider – is this a sign of some kind of latent lesbian tendency that prevented her from ever being able to properly bond with a man?
Does it say something about a woman’s ability to bond and appreciate and reciprocate loyalty if she prefers dogs?
January 29th, 2015 at 11:18 pm
It appears our man Changis has some competition!
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/least-ten-other-men-are-fruitful-genghis-khan
January 30th, 2015 at 12:35 am
On the notion that women have sole ownership of the decision to have sex:
I see this changing. Women are getting more aggressive, and have been for some time. If you are asked ‘how much would you charge me to rent you for an hour?’, and you decline, you have ownership of that decision, yes? Or if girls approach you, are flirtatious, reveal themselves to be DTF – and you redirect them to some other guy(s) and then bail from that location – you’ve really proven to be the one who’s made the decision there as well, yes?
There are times when I shudder to think how exceedingly few women in this culture are trustworthy, don’t get me wrong. But if we’re acting like women are really the only ones responsible for the decision that codifies or prevents adultery/cheating from taking place, I think we’re letting ourselves off the hook in a disingenuous way.
January 30th, 2015 at 12:42 am
@Steve H, don’t get ahead of yourself,…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html
January 30th, 2015 at 12:55 am
@ “respnsibility”/”women chooses” / etc.:
There is a very simple and distict formula to decide these questions without leaving the RP-mindset:
The party that has the *critical mass of power* in a any process bears the responsibility.
This true at work (The boss rules the workers, but the mistakes and successes are his…), in private life (cf. –> driving a car) and all other areas.
The same litmus test works with women fucking other men:
1) The sole critical mass of power in the decision of wether or not to accept a man’s sexual advances lies in the hands of women (baring real rape or living in a war zone –> irrelevant exceptions in the west)
2) The woman/women decide completly and without any interference(!) about sex, about bearing out alpha spawn, ending or starting marriage etc.pp.
3) ALL legal and social institutions completly and 100% pander to that internal judgement about accepting a “mating event” from a specific man.
4) NO legal or social institution panders to the wishes of men about starting or ending a mating event.
Conclusion:
The woman/women bear ALL of the responsibility, no matter if they want to whitewash the outcome (“That [sexy] asshole exploited that I was drunk and that it was a fun evening!!!111″) or celebrate it (“I made the decision to end the commitment, because we have moved apart and my needs weren’t met!”).
You can realise the truth of this simple test by observing, that women (if confronted at all about mate choices) always will deflect AWAWY from the true social power relations by trying to push *emotional and thus non-observable “facts”* against the logic mentioned above – but at the same time will not deny (because the can’t :-) ) who had the critical mass of power in that process. :-D
Ergo: Just fuck them, if you value your male peers –> shoot them a message after you had your fun and tell them what kind of “special angel” they have. Done that two times, felt GREAT about it. (Also, did not know before that they were engaged/married)
January 30th, 2015 at 1:00 am
@”If you are asked ‘how much would you charge me to rent you for an hour?’, and you decline, you have ownership of that decision, yes? Or if girls approach you, are flirtatious, reveal themselves to be DTF – and you redirect them to some other guy(s) and then bail from that location – you’ve really proven to be the one who’s made the decision there as well, yes?”
Your responsibility and above all *social power* in these examples is just a token one –
a) because one party (the female) can at any time for any reason change the desired outcome.
b) your consent, withdrawing or accepting the implicit offer is easily outmatched by one simple female move: Accepting (or if horny, initiating!) with a new male from hundreds of males who are DTF to fuck a single woman.
In this specific social interaction AT THAT STAGE/situation (right before SNL/DTF woman wants to get some) all male interaction is just symbolic – but not powerful.
January 30th, 2015 at 5:26 am
@sudden This issue about Islam and feminism is to be covered in Michel Houellebecq’s new novel Submission. See my ROK article about it here:
http://www.returnofkings.com/53588/why-michel-houellebecqs-submission-is-the-most-important-novel-of-2015
January 30th, 2015 at 9:01 am
@447 – your rebuttal makes perfect logical sense. However:
a) so also can the other party (the male) change the outcome at any time, and for any reason
b) this all depends on the relative value of the male as well as that of the female in question. if the male’s value is high enough, so also could he move along to ostensible ‘hundreds’ of females who would be DTF with *him*. Also – if the female’s value is not high enough (simply put, let’s say she’s chubby) – there are a world of social dynamics that negate the amount of power she’d have were she a ‘7’ or above. Even if she can pick another male who’s DTF, other men in the environment may well take the attitude of ‘pfff, go for it. i clearly have higher standards in who i fuck. you’re inferior to me. but i guess there’s an ass for every seat, so have at it, you sad schlub’. And it’s more humored and self-amused than hostile. I know I’ve been there. The point is – when the male is rendered ‘inferior’, even nonverbally, by other men in this way – the aggressive female is then cast into the role of the desperate, chubby, ultra low-value slam pig that she probably really *is*. Hope that makes sense.
And I’m beating a dead horse with this last point, but if you simply retain the humility to dial a call-girl at the end of any night you don’t land a ONS and want sex, then that further puts you in the position of a single man who maintains the power to have sex at any time of his choosing.
January 30th, 2015 at 9:47 am
“if you simply retain the humility to dial a call-girl at the end of any night you don’t land a ONS and want sex, then that further puts you in the position of a single man who maintains the power to have sex at any time of his choosing.”
OK, but at what cost?
1. Soliciting a prostitute is illegal in most states. When you’re caught, you’ll be publicly humiliated, suffer criminal penalties and social ostracism, and probably lose your job. High risk.
2. Sex with a prostitute is PURELY transactional. The only validation a john gets is confirmation of his own low value. Low reward.
3. Using prostitutes is monetarily expensive, especially relative to what’s being paid for (See #2). High cost.
4. The only benefit a man gets is sexual release. It’s two steps above porn and one step above frequenting strip clubs. There are other alternatives like simply using online porn.
January 30th, 2015 at 10:25 am
Deti, I think you are looking at the Whore Paradigm from the point that sex is of value.
To more and more men now, sex is just pleasure, whether wanking, ONS, P&D, or paying a whore to leave. It is about the pleasure of coming and has nothing to do with value, tenderness, emotions.
Pure physicality. As one wag stated, he finds jerking off using a pussy more pleasurable then using either of his hands.
Also I think that porn has transformed a lot of men from viewing sex as an act of love to an act of gymnastics/depravity. So by paying a pro, you can get that ass/mouth back and forth, that the wife/GF just aint ever gonna give you. As we, as a spoiled species, seek ever to break the envelope of sexual taboos, Lord forgive having just vanilla sex, I think that the push for total legal prostitution, like the weed movement, will eventually come to be. At this point, you will be able to order whatever kind of depravity suits you, and there will be some person willing and able to fulfil it at the right price.
January 30th, 2015 at 10:29 am
IMO hookers are a reasonable pressure relief. In certain countries like mine it’s perfectly legal and inexpensive, hell it’s way cheaper than a traditional date.
And I wouldn’t say it’s a confirmation of low value, rather it can be used if you can’t close the deal that night. Steve H is right in stating that escorts can be used to induce a form of outcome independence and therefore serves to reduce the scarcity mindset.
And one last thing: sex is very often transactional, but with hookers it’s at least honest.
January 30th, 2015 at 10:33 am
@ deNihilist: you live up to your name ;-)
January 30th, 2015 at 10:46 am
@Steve H
This is only half the story. The male has only one option, continue with seduction/escalation (sales pitch) to proceed according to her open gate, or abort the operation. He does not have positive control over the outcome, only negative control. He can abort, but he cannot directly choose success. The female has both positive AND negative control over the outcome. She can abort, and she can also throw herself at a man such that no man would refuse.
Restated, would you consider a car salesman to have full control over a transaction to purchase an automobile? He doesn’t have full control, all he can do is make a pitch and hope a buyer initiates a transaction. The buyer is also given leeway to abort the transaction at any moment before money has changed hands, or papers have been signed; and in some cases even AFTER those have occurred. The buyer of an automobile is considered to be 100% responsible for the decision of whether or not to buy a new car… AND which car to buy. The car salesman, like the average male, also has a biological NEED to complete their task, is it then worth blaming them for taking advantage of a situation offered by the women?
Women desired all power over when, how, and with who intercourse occurs. Society has answered by giving them that power. Therefore, they bear nearly all responsibility for cheating, imho.
January 30th, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Rollo, I’m sure you do this on purpose because, compared to Heartiste, your blog is more about your posts than the comments (and that is your right), but I wish you had a function that showed the 10 most recent comments. As you might agree, many of the commenters here are good and provide good input. I would like to be able to come here and see the latest comments (regardless of which post it’s under) to be able to follow the conversation. Just a thought.
I still say “thank you” for your work. Your writing is awesome and spot on.
January 30th, 2015 at 1:52 pm
@Jeremy
You know I thought there might be an exception to that dynamic in situations where a man drops below his normal SMV floor (i.e. he’s thirsty), but then I realizde that all he’s doing there is increasing just increasing the SMV gap (optimizing hypergamy for a low SMV woman), and increasing the size of the pool he’s fishing in. The dynamic remains the same, he’s just offered a woman a hypergamously good deal as an incentive.
January 30th, 2015 at 2:13 pm
“wish you had a function that showed the 10 most recent comments”
if comments were sorted (or could be sorted) by recent first it would be perfect
January 30th, 2015 at 2:18 pm
What I wouldn’t give for an “edit comment” button to fix typos. I suppose I need to just proofread a bit better.
January 30th, 2015 at 2:28 pm
^^^
It keeps you honest.
January 30th, 2015 at 2:32 pm
@Rollo
Fair enough. Personally I just want to not look like an idiot, but I can see your point with some of the folks you get here. Almost seems like it would be nice to engineer a comments system that can tell the difference between an edit for typos and an edit because someone called your bullshit.
Of course one option would be to have a system that lets you see each revision of the comment. Hmmm…
January 30th, 2015 at 3:24 pm
deti:
” The only benefit a man gets is sexual release. It’s two steps above porn and one step above frequenting strip clubs. There are other alternatives like simply using online porn.”
The fact that men will pay $100-200 suggests that they get more than mere sexual release or a slightly better feel on their dick. Myself, I often have more intense orgasms masturbating than with PVI. Sex with the pro pushes the buttons in the brain driving mating behavior in a number of subtle ways. As confirmed by prostitutes, often the men are looking to talk more than actually do PVI. That return repeatedly shows that in fact it does meet some interpersonal needs.
It’s like women seeking ONS and P&Ds with hawt men. It’s a pale simulation of an emotionally and mentally connected relationship, but they would rather do it than stay home with their cat and vibrator.
January 30th, 2015 at 4:24 pm
It’s perfectly reasonable to expect that your friends/family don’t poach your woman, just like you expect them not to poach your job. The whole point of having friends is that they are allies and you agree to a relationship of reciprocal cooperation and aid rather than competition. But for anyone else, poaching is acceptable and Sun’s approach is eminently rational.
It’s just free market mechanics. If someone is poachable, it means that they are not with the best possible partner they could get. Someone’s attempts to prevent their mate from being poached are, in effect, trying to use sentimental or moral considerations as a form of noncompetition restriction, similar to what businesses try to impose on employees who might find better opportunities. I could argue that trying to restrict someone’s freedom to leave a mate for a better opportunity is immoral in and of itself, similar to restrictions on free trade. If your mate can do much better than you, then you’re kind of being a greedy jerk to try to force her to stay with the worse deal just because *you’ve* got a better deal with her than the SMP arguably merits. It’s like an employer being angry that their worker leaves for a better offer.
Note that in a marriage, this should be different as this is a long term contract that should be more analogous to a long-term partnership agreement rather than at-will employment, which is the analogy to an unmarried romantic relationship. Personally, I think that all marriages should be actual contracts, with clear terms set at the outset and specified damages for breaching the terms. I think the only reason this hasn’t happened is that (a) if people actually had to think about and agree upon all the enforceable terms and damages beforehand, the marriage rate would go way down, and (b) even today, lots of marriages are “shotgun” marriages where the woman is already pregnant, and that kind of puts you over a barrel. So if a marriage was an actual enforceable contract like it *should* be, your mate might still decide to allow herself to be poached, but she would only do so if the new offer was so good that it was worth the clear breach of contract damages she’s going to have to suffer. In that case, you get damages from her, not from the poacher who had nothing to do with your marriage contract.
On the military angle, one consideration is that in a society where the males at the top horde an abundance of resources for themselves (whether wealth, property, or women), it is beneficial for them to get rid of the younger males who compete for those resources by sending them off to die, or at least to remove them from society where they might try to take what the elites have horded. This is especially true in polygamous systems, where it is absolutely necessary for the alpha elites to kill off and/or get rid of the masses of men who are their competition. This is why Mormons developed a system where they send their young, eligible men away on 2 year missions — helps them keep the young girls for themselves. In the fundamentalist Mormon groups that still practice polygamy today, the hording old men periodically oust vast swaths of the young men by trumping up religious charges and forcing the whole community to ostracize them…they’re kicked out of their families and communities and left to basically become homeless. Because none of the young girls want to marry the old men, so they have to just get rid of their natural competition so they can keep marrying 16 year olds. So in any system, if the men in power can come up with fake reasons — i.e. God commands it or your country needs your sacrifice — to convince all the youngest, most vigorous males to leave the system and potentially never come back (or come back with a woman from another culture), it effectively reduces their competition and culls the mass of males who are otherwise constantly threatening to take away what they want to keep for themselves.
In other words, the female imperative taken to its logical extreme might not seem appealing to those of you with yearnings for traditional families. But at least it allows people to have fun, doesn’t require death, and generally just operates on principles of freedom and free market competition. But the male imperative taken to its extreme is much worse (IMO), as it requires regularly killing off large amounts of men, clamping down on all fun and joy in an effort to restrict female sexuality (i.e. burkas, no music or dancing or interacting with the opposite sex, etc — all shit you get in societies where men wield 100% control), kidnapping/stealing women, and just generally massive amounts of forcible oppression of everyone but the few guys at the top of the pyramid.
One way of looking at the brief period of widespread monogamy and social stability that occurred for a few decades after WWII, which many of you seem nostalgic for, is that the only reason it was possible is because millions and millions of the world’s men had just been killed off in two world wars, and all of the advanced economies but ours had basically been leveled. In other words, it was a total aberration where there was basically no sexual or economic competition and so guys got a really good deal, but only because they were living in non-competitive circumstances. Just be glad none of you live in China, where they’re in the totally unnatural position of having way more males than females because of their own stupidity in aborting females — now that’s a real nightmare for men.
January 30th, 2015 at 4:44 pm
You had me up to here:
Male imperative sexual strategies are evolved contingencies to female imperative sexual strategies (Hypergamy).
I do agree, and have stated before, that unilaterally unrestricting one imperative while maximally restricting the other is a recipe for personal and social disaster – the genders evolved for complementarity, not to be adversarial.
However, each strategy is not mutually exclusive of the other. If men are hoarding resources and women it’s in response and preparation for countering the performance requisites of women’s strategy. Likewise, the men best manifesting this performance (physical and provisional) satisfy the feminine strategy.
The wolf makes the deer a better survivor, and in turn the better deer makes the wolf a better hunter.
January 30th, 2015 at 4:45 pm
@ kryptokate
Monogamy didn’t magically appear in the fall of 1945. It had been the primary arrangement of western civilization for a couple of thousand years prior. While not perfect it did a decent job of mitigating the evils you speak to.
What isn’t given full consideration is that the current system is causing men to quit. See Japan as the leader. Now that may not matter much to you. But where is the money going to come from to continue to subsidize open hypergamy?
January 30th, 2015 at 5:17 pm
re: “the only benefit a man gets is sexual release”
+1 to jacklabear’s comment.
If it was that simple, this blog wouldn’t exist. Guys would be completely fine with just masturbating and there would be no negative consequences to completely avoiding sex.
Is sex a need? That question has never been answered competently by anyone in the entire world.
Rollo’s focus is on intergender dynamics; my focus is intrapersonal dynamics that result from intergender dynamics, including the lack thereof.
e.g., the incel brain in particular. I also wonder in particular about sexuality in relation to adolescent brain development. “Windows” of development — can you miss your “window”? And what happens if you do? Also, what, if anything, of useful application, would be derived from answering and exploring these questions?
That’s my main area of interest, because of my own life experience and questions about what the effects have been of what I’ve been through.
What is the driving force behind sex? This blog wouldn’t exist if we didn’t have interpersonal sexual needs. As I said earlier, we’d all be fine just masturbating.
Obviously, we — as a species — are not okay just masturbating. To add to what jacklabear said, I actually remember reading a study years ago about how people prefer to have sex, even though almost everyone rated their orgasms/general physical pleasure as being GREATER when they masturbated.
This is a no brainer. But the reasons why get very complex and intricate, way beyond any study or thesis I’ve ever read.
If the solution was as simple as masturbating and forgetting women existed, we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.
We can deny that we have needs, but it doesn’t make the needs go away — or the consequences of not meeting them.
The paradox is that acknowledging we have a need for sex will NOT fulfill our need for sex.
But maybe it fulfills a related need: interpersonal connection, one of the understated advantages of blogs like this. Where else do men have to go to talk about these things and share ideas? Most guys are so conditioned it isn’t even worth trying to start a conversation about this stuff.
So while acknowledging the situation we’re in as men doesn’t necessarily help us directly with our relations with women, it’s still an important thing to have, and serves to fill some of the biological need for interpersonal connection.
January 30th, 2015 at 5:41 pm
@kryptokate
This is the type of feminist argument that assumes that “Men vs. Women” is the big battle, and that either men OR women will be the winners. In evolutionary biology… maybe.
One of the larger points of recognition in the manosphere is that Civilization was created by and for Beta males: those males who would other wise have no access to pussy. All those men you’re arguing will just be rounded up and killed? They’re Betas, and there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are Alphas. Betas are the ones benefiting from Civilization, as this massive, robust, unfathomable creation of theirs allows them to take and keep a woman.
Betas are the ones who built and now maintain Civilization. They’re also the ones dropping out and giving up, as there’s no longer any GOOD argument as to why they should bother maintaining a system that despises them personally so much. They aren’t getting laid, and should they come across a woman willing, they’re nearly guaranteed to be divorced and enslaved within a system that states matter-of-factly that once they get married the woman can divorce any time she wants with NO reason necessary, and be legally entitled to the money and property the man brought into the marriage.
These men, the ones who are such MASSIVE losers in our current socio-political system, are also simultaneously the ones who are maintaining our entire Civilization.
Your allusion to polygamous societies is false. They are also THE perfect example. Polygamous societies are run by Alpha males who have all the women. The Betas have no women and oftentimes no reason to live. Civilization does not exist in these areas. FORCE exists. Banditry and piracy exist. Rigid top-down social structures exist. Those poor Beta-schmoes at the bottom? If the local Alpha wants to kill them, they die. Civilization and Polygamy are mutually exclusive. Because why the fuck would that Beta-schmo with NOTHING invested in the current social structure do anything at all to protect the interests of that guy down the road who can have him killed on a whim?
To wrap this up; people here are not “nostalgic” for the “few decades after WWII”. That’s absolute nonsense and based upon either a disgusting level of ignorance or outrageous insincerity. Red Pill folks aren’t “nostalgic”. We ARE fully aware of what is happening around us. Our Civilization, with thousands of years of cultural history and hundreds of years of recognizable success as the most promising venture ever attempted by man, was given a death blow several decades ago. We’re watching it die around us, there’s nothing we can do to stop it, and we’ll be damned if we’re just going to sit by and whine about how awful it all is. We know we can’t stop it, so we’re ADAPTING and making the best of it. The past is dead. Some new culture will arise from the ashes, and we WILL be prepared to live out good, satisfying lives, whether it be colonizing Mars or just enjoying poolside.
January 30th, 2015 at 5:52 pm
@ BP
You’re right, monogamous marriage has existed for a while. I should clarify, when I referred to the post-WWII period, I was referring specifically to a society where virtually EVERYONE was monogamously married. While marriage did exist pre-19th century, it was mostly for the well to do. The upper class and landowners married, but lots of people never did, they just worked as servants/farmhands for the landowners and lived on their property. And also, there used to be WAY more prostitutes, as a proportion of women. I forget the exact numbers but if you look at the number of prostitutes in England pre-19th century, it’s fairly staggering.
But if you look at historical marriage rates in the US, for instance, the percentage of married adults went way, way up after WWII. The current low proportion of married adults we have now actually mirrors the pre-19th century rates.
Your comment about “who is going to pay for hypergamy?” is interesting — do you mean who is going to provision women and children? Through taxes or marriage? Women increasingly are provisioning for themselves, and tax-funded government services like the police/military/firefighters etc obviously do play most of the traditional male protector roles. You are right that in a system without universal monogamy, many men opt out because they have no motivation, and you can see that now, since we currently have an enormous portion of prime working-age males who aren’t working…several magnitudes larger than we ever had in the US in the past.
So essentially, it seems that in a system of full male control/polygamy, it requires killing off and getting rid of a large portion of men in order to allow the men at the top to keep more than one woman. This mirrors the animal kingdom where a male keeps a harem (ie lion pride) and kills off every other male competitor until he gets weak enough that a male challenger kills him and takes over the pride. Conversely, in a system of full female control/hypergamy, you get a large portion of men who won’t be forcibly killed/ousted, but they’ll voluntarily opt out because they aren’t getting any rewards. I guess monogamy IS the terse compromise.
It’s funny, because I remember in the 90s it was always men complaining about monogamy because they imagined absent monogamy, life would be some kind of pornographic fantasy paradise. They had so little exposure to what happens in a truly unrestricted market that it didn’t even occur to them to think about the downsides. I never thought I’d see the day where men were the ones complaining that women aren’t monogamous enough. It’s very interesting. I’ve long argued with guys that men are actually the ones who benefit most from monogamy and that it’s in their interests for these reasons, but the blue pill/traditional minded ones can never wrap their heads around what I’m saying. But that’s because they just literally can’t conceive of the actual female capacity for sexual callousness and promiscuity.
January 30th, 2015 at 5:58 pm
The situation you’re in as a man is somewhat unique, and likely a direct explanation to why humans are the most successful species on the planet.
Just think about it a bit. If we accept (not everyone does) that humans evolved from lesser lifeforms, then we have to accept that reproduction and the results of reproductive choices made us what we are. Well, natural selection requires a cross-section of reproductive choices to pick from when it’s picking winners and losers. The larger the cross section, the more adaptations are tried. It would then stand to reason that the most successful species on the planet would always be able to reproduce, whenever and wherever. It stands to reason that our reproduction would be dependent on very little that nature throws at us. In other words, the most successful species in any given situation is going to be the species that is most independent within their environment when it comes to reproduction.
This is why salmon and other river-spawning fish are still a lesser lifeform, their life cycle is very rigid and requires specific events to happen in sequence. This is why Panda’s are going extinct. This is why certain species of birds can go extinct, they only produce children during one period of the year. Humans can and do produce children year-round, We are constant baby factories.
Humans evolved a biological need to fuck. I my mind, I see it as very likely that our enormous biological drive to fuck is what has put us on top. Very few other species are known (or thought) to have sex for anything other than reproduction. Humans do it purely for pleasure. While it is difficult to remove the human brain (and capacity for imagination) from the explanation for that, I feel that our position as top species on the planet says something about the male drive to fuck anytime and anywhere being of primary importance in making us a successful species.
Basically what I’m saying is… Yeah, it can suck to have that drive if you’re not getting any, and women really don’t know what they’re missing… but without it, humans wouldn’t be any higher than any other life on the planet. It’s just what we are, the alphas of the planet, so we should act like it.
January 30th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
@ greginaurora I’m not seeing where you think we disagree. Well, I guess you didn’t like my allusion to post-WWII nostalgia, but other than that, what you just said is completely consistent with what I said.
I think you believe us to be in disagreement merely because of my screenname and your assumption that I’m a “feminist” (a term so amorphous and stretched to mean so many things as to be meaningless). But actually you and I are not disagreeing (though your emotions about it may be different from mine).
January 30th, 2015 at 6:15 pm
@ Jeremy That’s an interesting idea and while I’ll have to think a little more on it, it seems like it might be right. But, just one little tweak: the reason that humans are fucking machines is not because human males are so much more ready to mate than males of other species, but because human females are receptive to mating all the time. The male of any species will mate with any female who is receptive, i.e. in heat. It’s just that in most species the females are only in heat a few days a year. So actually it was by evolving concealed ovulation in women, so that neither male or female humans know when ovulation happens, and therefore females are just ALWAYS receptive (I mean in the biological sense), that made males always ready. If humans were like tigers and there were only 2 days a year when women went into heat, which was advertised to everyone, and those were the only 2 days a year when sex would happen, literally every single thing about our lives and social systems would be completely, radically different — that’d make a good science fiction story.
Dolphins and bonobos also have frequent, daily recreational sex. But out of the millions of species, they’re probably in the top ten for intelligence (well below humans obviously, but still). So maybe there’s something to your theory.
January 30th, 2015 at 6:20 pm
@Kate,
This is financial nonsense. Here’s some facts for you… Even after the significant loss of male jobs (much greater traditional male jobs lost than female jobs) in the last two recessions, men still pay more in taxes than women do. Most of those tax dollars (~60%) and a significant portion stolen from the unborn are spent on social programs. Social programs are state-run organizations that take the place of women’s traditional role, that is of caring for children and the elderly. What women have done is gotten the state to steal current income from men and future income from their very own children, so as to gift it to current women so that those women can then take jobs men were perfectly willing to take. Women are doing all of this while patting themselves on the back for their “success” in their careers. Great job ladies, get the government to steal from the guys, steal from your kids (in the form of national debt), all so you can “have it all.”
It’s hilarious to even think of women as “provisioning for themselves” when it takes men to police and fight fire, oh, and there is that thing called “national defense”. Face it, provisioning for yourself is a lie, a feminist lie. It doesn’t happen, and where it supposedly does, there is significant amounts of papering over all the subsidies. Furthermore, no valid reproduction of children well-enough adjusted to succeed takes place in such situations because the amount of one-on-one attention required to properly raise a child is incompatible with a career.
I lived through the 90s myself as a fully aware adult. I remember no such complaint. In fact, what I remember is that decade being the first significant male chafing at the fleecing they were getting under female-friendly divorce courts, all while women were demanding commitment. Men have no problem with monogamy from women capable of honoring vows like an adult might.
January 30th, 2015 at 6:46 pm
“I feel that our position as top species on the planet says something about the male drive to fuck anytime and anywhere being of primary importance in making us a successful species.”
Dogs fuck anytime and anywhere they come across a female in heat.
Maybe human reproductive success has more to do with women being in heat most of the time, and seeming to be in heat even when they’re not.
January 30th, 2015 at 6:50 pm
@kryptokate
Fair enough. Mine was a more emotional response than yours.
I disagree with you specifically on the “Male Imperative” vs. “Female Imperative” and how those two different dynamics affect the greater civilization of which they are a part. A split of that type does not truly represent the world as it is. A truly “Male imperative” society could arguable be recognized as a Polygamous society. But, a truly “Female imperative” society is also a Polygamous society. The only real difference is whether or not “Marriage” exists in the society. “Marriage” = one Alpha owns a whole lot of women. “No marriage” = Lots of women having sex with a few Alphas.
Neither are representative of a Monogamous society, and neither are capable of creating “Civilization”. Civilization itself is an artificial construct designed, above and before all other considerations, to give Betas access to women. Women don’t naturally desire sex with Betas, and Alphas don’t naturally want to share their women. Betas invented a social order that is better than the natural order, and they did so in order to fuck.
But you asked a very straight question, so I’ll try to answer it as straight as possible. The “Male imperative” and the “Female imperative” are biologically identical, as both involve pairing up fertile women with the best possible male mate. The third imperative, not mentioned, is a trade-off in favor of Civilization. Women pair up with men who are NOT the best possible sexual mate, and in exchange the entire local social structure benefits. One could compare it to the Prisoner’s Dilemma: if the woman trades down, everybody wins. If the woman trades up, she wins, but everybody else loses, and she risks greater long-term loss herself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Today, there is no risk to greater long-term loss for women. To continue the Prisoner’s Dilemma analogy, Men have been maintaining the same strategy, and have been losing consistently, where women changed their strategy and are now winning consistently. That actually sounds similar to what you were saying earlier (to a degree).
But I’m talking about a third point not-specifically regarding how-to-get-laid-and-who-to-do-it-with. And I’ll bring back the word “Feminism” to make my point; Feminists see everything in terms of “Men vs. Womyn”, and can be pretty generally counted upon to HATE Men. But not really. Feminists hate Betas. They can’t bring themselves to truly hate Alphas. How could they hate someone so dreamy? So the dynamic, at it’s very core, is disingenuous on the part of feminists. They don’t hate “Men”, but rather Beta-men, and hate the entire structure of our civilization. Feminists want to end all instances of women-having-sex-with-Betas.
So my argument could be said to be thus: Stop arguing “Men vs. Women”. It’s not a legitimate argument.
January 30th, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Apparently KK beat me to it while I was writing.
Kryptokate
January 30th, 2015 at 6:04 pm
@ greginaurora I’m not seeing where you think we disagree. … what you just said is completely consistent with what I said.
Rollo, BP and greginaurora were pointing out that your argument is based on a false dichotomy.
Regardless of whether you call yourself a feminist or not, most of your argumentation is based on the leftist belief in the blank slate – that all people are basically the same and have no hardwired instincts, and that all human behavior is driven by learned socialization. That’s why you are proposing social engineering that is counter to observation, historical facts and science. i.e. we can have unrestrained hypergamy in a civilized society if we just tweak the contracts a bit.
You are not taking into account things like the jealousy instinct. Do you know why humans are (sexually) jealous? Because non-jealous people were not our ancestors. That’s why polyamory is mostly a farce. No matter how many times Deborah Anapol goes to India to get reprogrammed at the ashram, she gets extremely upset when her male workshop partner goes off to fuck someone else instead of her. I saw it in person.
The Blank Slate – The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker is the best non-fiction book I have read. You might want to check it out.
January 30th, 2015 at 7:09 pm
@KryptoKate
Human nature is why very few women would sign the marriage contract that you propose – it holds them accountable for their mating choices.
January 30th, 2015 at 7:16 pm
@jacklabear
Heh. I’ve had that same thought before.
“Let’s not get married. Let’s instead sign a legally-binding contract stipulating what we will share and what the monetary penalties are for breaking the contract.”
“What?!? Why the fuck would I agree to that!”
“Exactly.”
January 30th, 2015 at 7:20 pm
“No, I’m not white knighting or blue pilling here.” But you did, Jacklabear.
That whole fucking word salad you spewed forth was nothing but white knighting blue pillery. RMV? You’re a real clever guy… lolzozlz
January 30th, 2015 at 7:46 pm
@ greginaurora Well put. I agree with everything you said. You’re right that in both systems, effective polygamy is the result. I’m not specifically trying to argue men vs women anything, the only reason I mentioned the “female imperative” and “male imperative” is because it’s a foundational principle of this blog, i.e. Rollo’s iron rule # I’m-not-sure that one gender’s sexual imperative necessarily impinges on the other’s.
But in any event, I agree that either gender’s sexual strategy is ultimately linked to a pre-civilization primitive, animalistic scenario in any event, and they both end up in effective polygamy. And that civilization creates an artificial construct that moves beyond what is “natural” and into something man-made and (arguably) better.
January 30th, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Allen
January 30th, 2015 at 7:20 pm
“No, I’m not white knighting or blue pilling here.” But you did, Jacklabear.
That whole fucking word salad you spewed forth was nothing but white knighting blue pillery. RMV? You’re a real clever guy… lolzozlz
I’m an engineer. My goal is to make things work well in the real world, especially for me and those I care about..
I don’t really give a shit about dogma
January 30th, 2015 at 7:55 pm
@ Jeremy Sure, I guess that’s sort of true, but only at a very, very macro level. At an individual level, MOST women haul their asses out of bed every day and go to work and earn a paycheck and pay taxes just like men, and all of us benefit from police and firefighters, and all of us get social security and Medicare. The biggest transfer of wealth is not directly to women but to elderly people. You’re not arguing for abolishing national defense, police, and firemen, are you?
As for divorce rape, you don’t have to convince me on that, I’m entirely against alimony. Like I said, marriage should be a contract enforceable like any other with damages for breach or the ability to mutually terminate. But alimony laws are all based on the traditional, old system where if a couple divorced, the woman would be destitute because she couldn’t get a job. So they’re not modern but archaic and should definitely be abolished, it’s ridiculous. If a man has to continue paying a woman after divorce, then she should be forced to keep going over to his house and doing his laundry and cooking him dinner and giving him blowjobs. But, I expect that alimony laws WILL be abolished shortly, as more women are having to pay it now. Women seem to be better at advocating for their collective interests because I think it will take women paying alimony to get those old laws off the books — I can’t for the life of me understand why they still exist or who thinks they’re fair (I’ve literally never heard a single person male or female argue that they actually make sense nowadays).
January 30th, 2015 at 8:01 pm
@ Kryptokate
You speak of prostitutes with cloaked disdain. At they’re making an honest living by contributing to a genuine need. The last thing we need is another communications major or advanced degree ******studies major in our workforce to contribute rehashed outrage and well spoken nonsense.
If women collectively believe they are contributing to the maintenance of civilization by working then why do they so often only choose to work in fields that are best described as luxuries?
January 30th, 2015 at 8:02 pm
@ jacklabear I’m not sure what you think I’m “proposing”. I’m not proposing anything. I don’t think any system is that great. Monogamy isn’t great, polygamy is definitely not great for anyone but the alpha males, polyamory doesn’t work for the reasons you posited. We’re a bundle of contradictions and competing impulses from primitive times, living in a technologically advanced world, and we’re an impossible hybrid of being animals with animal impulses who have an analytical cortex layered on top that chatters to us with articulate rationalizations for our animal drives. The only perfect “proposal” I could see would be something akin to Brave New World, but we’re not there yet and most people seem averse to the idea anyway. However, I am sure as hell glad to not have been born into a primitive society, that’s for damn sure.
January 30th, 2015 at 8:08 pm
@ BP I have no disdain for prostitutes at all. I’m surprised more men don’t use them, I would if I was a man. Prostitution should absolutely be legal. I actually hold much more disdain for Pilates-Princess PTA stay at home moms living in fancy houses who are just high-priced prostitutes but act as if they’re holier than thou. As you said, at least a straight-up prostitute is engaging in an honest transaction rather than trying to dress it up as something else.
I can’t speak for why most women choose to work in easy/fluffy/lower-paying fields, but I imagine it’s because they can.
January 30th, 2015 at 8:20 pm
“But, I expect that alimony laws WILL be abolished shortly, as more women are having to pay it now.”
Yes, and child support will be abolished when women stop getting 90% of custody.
January 30th, 2015 at 8:29 pm
“Kryptokate
January 30th, 2015 at 8:02 pm
@ jacklabear I’m not sure what you think I’m “proposing”. I’m not proposing anything.”
“Personally, I think that all marriages should be actual contracts, with clear terms set at the outset and specified damages for breaching the terms.”
I stand corrected. You didn’t actually propose it, you just ‘personally thought’ it.
January 30th, 2015 at 9:09 pm
Kryptokate – “The only perfect “proposal” I could see would be something akin to Brave New World, but we’re not there yet and most people seem averse to the idea anyway.”
I thought the same when I was 16. Now I understand that model is just benevolent, soft, soulless slavery. Any society tat requires, REQUIRES mind altering drugs to keep te peope happy is Not worth living in no matter how easy it s to get laid. I can’t imagine anything more awful.
On the the othe hand aren’t we living in Brave New World? Given the rampent promiscuity, social and economic stratification, materialism, and the prevalence of anti-depressants, Ithink we can say the reality ofthe dystopia only differs from the book by degrees and differences in asthetics.
January 30th, 2015 at 9:25 pm
Badpainter,
I guess “The Hedonistic Imperative” wouldn’t appeal to you then.
http://www.hedweb.com/
The problem with this idea is that humans would implement it, and the implementers would abuse the power.
January 30th, 2015 at 9:41 pm
@ BP Yep, we are definitely moving in the BNW direction, though we’re not there yet. And yes, it’s benevolent slavery, but aren’t we all arguably slaves already, to our biological imperatives, our families, the culture we were born in to, etc? It’s probably not useful to get so philosophical, but in a certain sense there is no such thing as being “free”, so maybe the best we can do is pick our master. A genetically engineered utopia designed by humans is only problematic because we’re not smart enough to make it happen, no? Right now we’re genetically engineered by the uncaring, pointless, amoral forces of evolution, which clearly is powerful but that doesn’t mean it’s GOOD.
@ jacklabear Thanks for the hedonism project link (not intended for me, I know). Now I have something to entertain me and stimulate my imagination tomorrow morning while I hedonistically lie in bed after sleeping in. :)
January 30th, 2015 at 10:11 pm
KryptoKate,
I’m glad you found it interesting.
35 years ago I figured that we humans are having problems because through technology our power to meet our instinctual drives have been greatly amplified (pushing the Button instead of throwing a rock, population explosion), but the strength of those drives have not diminished accordingly. We’re up shit’s creek because we ate from the tree of knowledge.
Like the HI, the solution is to adjust our brain wiring so that the drives are in line with our power to implement them. But of course humans doing that would abuse the power. So the solution is to have a non-human, non-competitive intelligence do it.
Using ‘genetic algorithms’, right now it is possible to have computers designing better computers until they achieve superhuman intelligence. Since they were not subject to selection where they had to compete with humans for resources, and they have different resource needs they would likely not be hostile towards us. They might just decide to leave and not bother with the crazy humans, but they might also decide to benevolently help solve our problems by adjusting our brains for us.
The assumption is that wisdom and compassion is an emergent property of very high intelligence. Or altruism can be designed into the fitness testing of the algorithm to encourage it’s creation.
So I went to study computer engineering, but ended doing strictly analog electronics. Does anyone else want to take this on as a mission?
January 30th, 2015 at 10:13 pm
Kryptokate – “It’s probably not useful to get so philosophical, but in a certain sense there is no such thing as being ‘free’…”
I am now absolutely convinced you’re a woman.
January 30th, 2015 at 10:42 pm
@bp
On the the othe hand aren’t we living in Brave New World?
We are. Orwell got it wrong, Huxley got it right. We’re entertaining and consuming ourselves to death. The “powers that be” don’t even have to keep us in line. We do it to ourselves.
Huxley was ranting against the oncoming train of rampant, out of control consumerism and all it brings with it. He was dead on about what would happen.
January 30th, 2015 at 10:57 pm
Badpainter,
“Beyond Freedom and Dignity” was written by BF Skinner.
The neuroscientist David Eagleton argues that free will is largely an illusion.
“I am now absolutely convinced you’re a woman.”
I’ve noticed that you’re a wise man. I’m hoping to learn something from you. Could you elaborate on that?
Actually I just realized what you meant. She wants to submit to a dominant something. But like most modern women, it must be anything but a man.
January 30th, 2015 at 11:01 pm
Bingo
January 30th, 2015 at 11:11 pm
@ Sun Wukong
The four great dystopian novels in my opinion are:
Player Piano – Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Brave New World – Aldus Huxley
1984 – George Orwell
Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand
They are all coming true in some form or another which only speaks to the limits of human imagination, and literature that no one writer has combined those themes into one single work. Also, I find the psycho-sexual subtext of those works to be very illustrative of Redpill truths generally although limited by the authors narrative.
January 30th, 2015 at 11:39 pm
@bp
I was rather underwhelmed by Atlas Shrugged, but I’ll have to read Player Piano as I haven’t yet. Thanks for the recommendation.
January 30th, 2015 at 11:47 pm
@ jacklabear I don’t want to derail the subject/content of this blog, and I think this thread is done anyway, but I have some questions about AI along the lines of what you wrote that I would like to pose to an actual computer engineer. Because I don’t know anything about computer programming, but my instinct fits with what you said — that an artificial intelligence that was purposefully designed as opposed to “designed” through selective biological pressures/competition for resources would have no reason to oppose human interests. But my question is whether it would/could have any interests of its own or any motivation to do anything at all. Anyway, I’ve been developing some ideas about this that I would like to test against someone who actually knows something about computer engineering to see whether I’m off track or not. If you wouldn’t mind answering some questions of a philosophical/technological bent, shoot me an email at katetaylorx @ gmail Kate Taylor is a pseudonym, btw, though I am female. And if you don’t feel like answering such questions, that’s cool too.
January 31st, 2015 at 1:43 am
Kate,
“But my question is whether it would/could have any interests of its own or any motivation to do anything at all.”
That’s the issue with the hedonistic imperative too. With no ‘hedonic treadmill’ – that is always only being able to relieve suffering temporarily – would we want to do anything?
As far as computers go, the method I proposed has it built in that it’s mission is to keep improving itself.
Jack LaBear is a pseudonym too. I have only been able to say since a few years ago that I’m a Man with full self acceptance. Toxic masculinity brainwashing you know.
What species of female did you say you are? How do you feel about femininity?
January 31st, 2015 at 4:06 am
“@447 – your rebuttal makes perfect logical sense. However:
a) so also can the other party (the male) change the outcome at any time, and for any reason”
The male can only eject, thus gaining no mating. His ejection also is no real (social) threat and can be redefined via the FI-tools of “was gay”/”afraid of a strong woman”/”full of fear”….so even the only male option can still be punsihed severly (for normal men), just because the ego of an (objective) HB5 was hurt.
“b) this all depends on the relative value of the male as well as that of the female in question. if the male’s value is high enough, so also could he move along to ostensible ‘hundreds’ of females who would be DTF with *him*.”
I completly agree that the male’s mate value is a critical “switch” in the premises of what was discussed above.
But there is a simple problem: When potentially hundreds of *women who count as women in sexual interactions* (–> HB5 and above) want a man, that men already IS beyond the normal dynamics of the mating market.
Such a man needs neither PU-skills nor any kind of TRP.
What would be the consequences? –> Every man cannot be “alpha” in the eyes of women, because that status is relative to what other males are around….–>lifting paradox: If everybody lifts and has a hardbody, no one scores more with women…
“Also – if the female’s value is not high enough (simply put, let’s say she’s chubby) – there are a world of social dynamics that negate the amount of power she’d have were she a ‘7’ or above. Even if she can pick another male who’s DTF, other men in the environment may well take the attitude of ‘pfff, go for it. i clearly have higher standards in who i fuck. you’re inferior to me. but i guess there’s an ass for every seat, so have at it, you sad schlub’. And it’s more humored and self-amused than hostile. I know I’ve been there. The point is – when the male is rendered ‘inferior’, even nonverbally, by other men in this way – the aggressive female is then cast into the role of the desperate, chubby, ultra low-value slam pig that she probably really *is*. Hope that makes sense.”
Yes, I agree it makes sense. I can certainly see what kind of situations you are talking about – although these situations are fairly new for me. :-)
Nevertheless – it’s a severe problem, if normal to slightly above average guys (like me) first have to change their personaility, drink from the vial of dark triad, learn PU-‘deceptions’ etc. pp. just to arrive at what should be the NATURAL BIRTHRIGHT of any productive male member of society.
“And I’m beating a dead horse with this last point, but if you simply retain the humility to dial a call-girl at the end of any night you don’t land a ONS and want sex, then that further puts you in the position of a single man who maintains the power to have sex at any time of his choosing.”
Just my personal POV here:
I believe the john is the whore and the whore is the john – such interactions (except if you already found your game and thus don’t *really* need them, s.a.) are actually deeply damaging…because the john has to *overcompensate* AND *accept the status of an omega* for the time of the interaction. Why? He can’t have his way with her as he wants to, even the physical release is highly regulated in the strictest sense etc.pp. AND he has to give enormous amounts of BB – if we talk about more than cheap ‘flatrate brothels’ like here in Germany. (They are not called that anymore, but it exists – you pay an entry fee and can fuck as much as you want to – of course these women [although somtimes very attractive] are complete human waste)
Here in Europe, ordering a girl is no problem at all and it is perfectly legal – but that doesn’t help in my POV.
The best indicator of that is:
1) There are ‘flatrate brothels’ (they are just not called that any more b/c of a new law)
2) These brothels are (relativly) cheap and often stocked with medium to sometimes very hot whores – AFCs and lower betas should be flocking to them in droves
3) Even guys who don’t have any game skill at all / are stuck in boring, completly ‘beta-fied’ LTRs don’t really go there.
Who goes there? (Again, just my prsonal and subective POV in Europe)
1) Guys who are omega in the arena of ‘clearing’ women, even if successful everywhere else.
2) Damaged guys / extremy unattractive guys (e.g. have money/good job, but really obese/smelly/extremly unattractive face)
3) A small segment of youngsters that wants to lose their virginity.
January 31st, 2015 at 6:45 am
@447
“Damaged guys / extremy unattractive guys (e.g. have money/good job, but really obese/smelly/extremly unattractive face)”
How would your average beta (most likely 80‰+ of men) not fall in the not having money/not having good job/really obese/extremely unattractive demographic of men? Better yet, what if they’re compared to the Hollywoodized version of men? Because these days we all are, whether the chicks mean to or not.
Face it: the vast majority of men will never bang a 7/10 or greater without cash up front these days. If you think that isn’t the case, time to pay better attention to a big part of why men learn Game.
January 31st, 2015 at 9:14 am
@447
I live in Germany as well but I beg to differ concerning the typical john. I don’t think one is like the other. I myself don’t frequent brothels nor do I use escorts but I know some guys personally who do. These guys aren’t betas at all, they’re rather high drive alpha guys who use escorts only to relieve pressure when hey’re not in the mood to hook up. Some of them are exteremely dominant, so they might pay but they clearly control the interaction if only after a couple of call-ins. Sometimes the women even give it up for free.
I agree however that flatrate and regular brothels seem to be different and are generally considered to be below these guys standards.
February 1st, 2015 at 1:04 pm
@ Sun Wukong:
“[…] How would your average beta (most likely 80‰+ of men) not fall in the not having money/not having good job/really obese/extremely unattractive demographic of men? Better yet, what if they’re compared to the Hollywoodized version of men? Because these days we all are, whether the chicks mean to or not.
Face it: the vast majority of men will never bang a 7/10 or greater without cash up front these days. If you think that isn’t the case, time to pay better attention to a big part of why men learn Game.”
Your statement depends on the exact definition of ‘beta’ and what an *objective* HB7 (in contrast to personal/subjective HB7) is.
On American sites, ‘beta’ seems to be put in the same category als “total AFC, a real loser with women”.
If you define the terms like that (and apply “HB7″ in one of the strict definitions, like “HB7 = at least amateur model quality”) – I agree.
On the motivation why men learn game:
Of course, it starts out with wanting to fuck what should be the natural birthright for the crown of todays civilzations (that is, functional, healthy and genetically/psychologically functioning and contributing men – not restricting it to EU/USA, btw.): Young hot women whenever you want to, b/c men made the dream of a totally safe und rich civilzation real.
Put what I see is this:
You fuck you frist 17 year-old amateur model in the ass and cum in her mouth.
Yeah…
Great…
Now you are the king of the hill? The big player?
No, absolutly not, because all restrictions have been maximized for men and abolished for women.
You could fuck 1, 10 or 100 of them and still be a tool – a “better beta”, who just learned to play his role in the feminine imperative’s game of “jump the hoop, get a nice girl you would have been given anyway for free 80 years ago- now jump 27 hoops to do it again and pay BB to the FI at the same time while smiling all the way!”.
The men who stay in PU/TRP AFTER getting the minmum of bangs required for sexual satsifaction…want to (whether they admit to that or not) *control the process*.
Not just get a lay, but learn how to achieve psychological and social dominance/control, because that was taken away by traiterous apex-alphas and a host of other factors (Frankfurt school/the ones who may not be talked about/ financial mega-players profiting from a flooded job market/consumer goods…/consumer credits …we could go on and on about that).
The rest?
They learn just barly enough flashy PU-moves to barly get a ONS sometimes, exaggerate that to “SNL HB9!!111″ and still have no control over* the process*. (–> children with dynamite-post on rational male)
February 1st, 2015 at 1:08 pm
@heyjay:
“@447
I live in Germany as well but I beg to differ concerning the typical john. I don’t think one is like the other. I myself don’t frequent brothels nor do I use escorts but I know some guys personally who do. These guys aren’t betas at all, they’re rather high drive alpha guys who use escorts only to relieve pressure when hey’re not in the mood to hook up. Some of them are exteremely dominant, so they might pay but they clearly control the interaction if only after a couple of call-ins. Sometimes the women even give it up for free.
I agree however that flatrate and regular brothels seem to be different and are generally considered to be below these guys standards.”
I agree – if we talk about “real” (–> expensive, high HB-factor whores with social skills) escorts that you have to order from non-public numbers.
M<y point is rather that they don't help the regualr guy on the street – if you can pay for the "grilfriend experience", for exmaple – you already are at least a situational alpha.
Personally, I do not use whores at all – for the reasons I outlined above.
February 2nd, 2015 at 4:22 pm
Did anyone else laugh at air force basic training being called tough?
February 2nd, 2015 at 11:03 pm
[…] post Loyalty & Hypergamy is an article that I think some of my male readers would find illuminating (I guess women might […]
February 5th, 2015 at 1:20 pm
[…] noreply@blogger.com (Vox) This email Rollo shared from a soldier describes the experience of many a beta or delta concerning female disloyalty:One girl, leading into Christmas break, said […]
February 7th, 2015 at 10:55 am
” I have never been steered in the right direction in relationships by any woman” That put a genuine smile on my face because it’s such a pure form of truth. It’s something all men should realize on their own during their lifetime