I came across another familiar story on the TRP Reddit this week. It’s familiar because this story is becoming increasingly more common as Hypergamy becomes a more open secret that women can no longer keep under wraps.
For the better part of 2014, and in Preventive Medicine, I explored the social trend of Open Hypergamy and the impact it’s beginning to effect on contemporary western(ized) culture. In that exploration I published Saving the Best (another TRP link), a story which revolved around the increasingly more common post-Epiphany Phase “regrets” women have when their Party Years indiscretions are made evident to the Beta men who committed to them in monogamy or marriage.
Have a read of Saving the Best before you continue here, you’ll see the commonalities immediately. I’m going to dissect this “confession” a bit as I go, but bear in mind this woman’s predicament is the direct result of the unintentional Red Pill awareness that Open Hypergamy has brought men to – even uninitiated Beta men.
An update, for those asking for it. Here’s the link to my original post although the text has been deleted? Before I get into the details, I’d just like to say I greatly appreciate the support this community extended me. Believe it or not, I read every response.
As of this morning, we still hadn’t slept in the same bed or spoken more than 10 words to each other in passing. As I was waking up, he was walking in the front door with two coffees. He sat me down at our kitchen table and finally opened up to me.
Basically he feels that he was “conned” (his word) into the marriage, saying that he wouldn’t have even dated me, let alone married me, if he’d known what he knows now. His view of me has been irreparably changed and he no longer sees me “as someone worthy of being [his] wife”. (quoting him here… fucking prick) Beyond the sexual aspect, he says he no longer trusts me because I “kept something this big” from him our whole relationship.
One of the primary disconnects women are conditioned to believe during their Epiphany Phase is that a “good man” will be willing to forgive and forget her past indiscretions. On their journey of self-exploration and discovery women are encouraged to adopt a finely tuned cognitive dissonance with who they conveniently become and what should be the consequences of their pasts. While men are expected to live up to their responsibilities as men, and are expected to own up to the consequences of their failures, at the Epiphany Phase women are encouraged to convince themselves that they become someone else – someone who was “so different” from who she was in her Party Years.
Her husband feels “conned” because he was conned; conned after discovering the dual personality of his pre and post Epiphany Phase wife. What we’re expected to believe here (courtesy of the social conventions emplaced by the Feminine Imperative) is that her husband is some prudish, moralistic throwback unwilling to accept and embrace the “real” her – the one who was trying to “get it right” by turning over a new leaf with him. This is the easy, ready-to-use shame that women have available to them; if a man becomes indignant over a woman’s sexual past it translates into his insecurities as a man. His feeling conned over his bait & switch marriage is redirected to being his problem.
Men aren’t off the hook with that convenient convention either. There’s a moral high ground many men want to claim and cast the actions of a guy in this circumstance as virtuous and a proper revenge for being mislead. While that may feel good, men in this situation aren’t disillusioned with their ‘unworthy’ wives from a moral pretense, but rather that they believed they would be entitled to their wives’ sexual best reserved for him. As I quoted in Saving the Best, they “marry a whore who fucks like a prude.”
Subjectively that may or may not be the case, but it’s the freedom and genuine desire with which their wives had sex with prior (Alpha) lovers; desire that wasn’t based on material provisioning, emotional investment or the logistical hoops women expect their post-Epiphany “good men” to perform to in order to merit their sexual and intimate attentions. That’s the disconnect, that’s the con; Alpha Bad Boys get her 3-Way genuine sexual abandon with no investment expected, while he’s got to maintain ‘multiple businesses’ in order to get a prosaic sexual experience with her. The Bad Boys got her sexual best for free, while he’s expected to accept her as the ‘new’ post-Epiphany her…
Nothing I could do or say could convince him that these were past mistakes and not reflective of who I am today. He wasn’t angry with me, didn’t call me a slut or anything like that. Never once raised his voice. Part of me wishes he did, although I can’t exactly say why right now. It felt like I was being laid off from a job.
As I mentioned, the expectation is for her husband to accept “who she is today”, yet who she was ten years ago had a more genuine desire for less established, but sexually arousing, lovers. I’m going to speculate here, but it’s likely that a man who owns multiple businesses spent more of his time diligently and (I presume) responsibly cultivating those enterprises than the men his wife took as lovers ten years ago. Again, we can see that as a moral virtue on his part, but there’s a root indignation of what her past represents within the context of his (I assume) responsible past.
And like a good business owner he plays the confrontation calmly and collectedly. The part of her that wishes he’d raised his voice is the same part that got excited by the Alpha indifference of her former lovers.
So that’s it. We are getting divorced. My supposed life-partner turning his back on me without a second thought. He didn’t even have the decency to discuss it with me first – apparently he visited his lawyer during the week and “the process is in motion” (his words). Knowing him, there is absolutely no changing his mind.
My husband owns multiple businesses and wouldn’t get married without a prenup. I signed it, honest-to-god thinking we’d never, EVER have to use it. Well, he had the fucking document with him this morning. He said he’d pay off the remainder of my student loans, which he isn’t “legally obligated” to do. While I appreciate that, I am going to meet with my lawyer this week and see if the agreement can be challenged in court. We have built a life together, I gave him 5 of the best years of my life and I’ve been 100% faithful to him – I don’t fucking deserve to be tossed out like a piece of trash.
So that’s it. My life turned upside-down in the span of a week, over something I did 10+ YEARS AGO BEFORE I EVEN KNEW HIM. It’s fucking asinine. The thing is, even as I wrote the original post, in the back of my mind I knew he was through with me. He’s ended friendships and business partnerships over less.
Ghosts of Epiphanies Past
In Preventive Medicine I go into a bit of detail about men in this increasingly common circumstance. There is a subconscious expectation on the part of Beta men who find themselves at or just past women’s Epiphany Phase, that predisposes them to believing that what they’ve become as a result of their perseverance throughout their 20’s has now come to fruition and the women who ignored them then have now matured to a point where he’s the ‘sexy’ one at last.
Unless men have a moment of clarity or a Red Pill initiation of their own prior to this, what they don’t accept is that this expectation is a calculated conditioning of the Feminine Imperative to prepare him for women like this; women who can no longer sexually compete for the Alpha Fucks they enjoyed in their Party Years. The Feminine Imperative teaches him that he can expect a woman’s “real” sexual best from the “real” her – why else would she agree to a lifelong marriage if he weren’t the optimal choice to settle down with? Why wouldn’t she be even more sexual than in her past with the man she’s chosen to spend her life with and have children with?
That is the message the Feminine Imperative used to subtly and indirectly imply to Betas-in-waiting. Now with the comfort of Open Hypergamy this message is published in best selling books by influential women:
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead
Not to belabor Sandberg yet again (she has been hocking the tired out Choreplay meme recently), but this is essentially the outline of the script we’re reading in this woman’s lament. She’s essentially followed Sandberg’s advice only to find that her Beta-in-waiting bought into the same script too. The problem for her is that he took the “nothing’s sexier” part to heart only to find that someone else was sexier long before she’d convinced him otherwise.
For what it’s worth, fem-centrism has far less to fear from the manosphere revealing the ugly Red Pill truths about Hypergamy and more to worry about from pridefully self-indulgent women gleefully explaining it to the general populace themselves. Roosh had a tweet this week with what would likely have been the attitude of our subject wife ten odd years ago:
The more common Open Hypergamy becomes and the more proudly it’s embraced by the whole of women the less effective shaming men into acceptance of it will be. However, I thought it was entertaining when the counter-comments on Saving the Best questioned how common this situation really was or else thought it was trolling.
I think it’s much more prevalent than most men would like to admit. Perhaps not as dramatic as this example, but far more common for a majority of men who’ve tacitly accepted that the woman they married (or paired with) gave her best to her prior lovers and are too personally or family invested to extricate themselves from her after they’ve realized it. That investment necessitates them convincing themselves of the pre-planned memes the Feminine Imperative has prepared for them – that they are doing the right thing by forcing that dissonance out of their minds.
A lot of Betas-in-waiting like to claim a personal sense of vindication about their successfully pairing and breeding with women who they believe are (and were) their SMV evaluate equals once those women have “got it out of their system” with regards to self-discovery and Alpha indiscretions. In a sense they’re correct; often enough these are the men who gratefully embrace a woman’s intimate acceptance of him precisely at the point when his SMV has matured to match this woman’s declining SMV. I call this crossover the comparative SMV point in my SMV graph.
Even women on the down-slide of their SMV like to encourage the idea that their post-Epiphany decision to marry the Plan B Beta provider (long term orbiter) is evidence of their newly self-discovered maturity. How could they have been so foolish and not seen how the perfect guy for her had been there all along? That consideration gratifies the ego of a Beta who’s been hammered flat by rejection or mediocre experiences with women up to that point.
The primary reason I spent the last year compiling Preventive Medicine was to help men see past the compartmentalization of women’s phases of maturity, but also to help them see past their own immediate interpretations of those phases as they’re experiencing them. Long term sexual and intimate deprivation (i.e. Thirst) will predispose men to convincing themselves of the part they believe they should play in the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative. Their own cognitive dissonance is a small, subliminal price to pay when they believe they’re finally being rewarded with a woman who’s now ready to give him her best.
What inspired me to this post was reading a cutesy photo-meme on Facebook. The syrupy message was “My only regret was not meeting you sooner so we could spend more of our lives together” superimposed over some kids in black & white holding a rose. Then it hit me, this was a message a guy was posting to his girlfriend; the one he’d met after his second divorce was finalized. What he didn’t want to think about was that if he’d met her sooner she’d have been too busy “discovering herself” to have anything to do with him.
March 26th, 2015 at 2:21 am
@ Sun Wukong
Although Jeremy’s logic is solid I think he perhaps operates under a flawed premise.
Newgal states clearly women must by sluts for men to get laid. This also means women must be sluts for women to get laid. Why must that be true? Because Newgal alludes to a dirty little truth so ingrained in the social consciousness it’s a cliché: wives hate sex. Therefore women, sluts and otherwise, get married so they can stop having sex except as necessary to get pregnant.
Think about it.
The girlfriend provides sex good enough to motivate a desire in the man to commit. After the wedding is a period of at least adequate sex followed by a decline to little or nothing if she can get away with this. When the wife becomes suitably frustrated/disenchanted with the marriage she changes title to divorcée and is again free to become a sexual creature.
The source of the problem is that women have very little sense of self that is internally derived therefore they play roles defined externally. These roles are proxies for their identities which barely exist. In 2015 wives are not defined as sexually giving, or sexual at all except for the honeymoon period. If the sexual wife exists in this culture it as the adulteress giving herself to men other than her husband.
March 26th, 2015 at 2:43 am
@bp
Oh absolutely. The wife that hates sex is such a “thing” now I really think it’s what makes even Blue Pill guys at least pause on their way to the altar. “Do I really want to put a libido draining fat license on her finger?” I think that premise is largely built out of feminine cynicism about settling for BB. They all know the script so well that they assume they’re going to marry a guy they don’t want to fuck. Imagine that: assuming you’re going to hate sex for the rest of your life.
What a horrendously awful view of a man you haven’t even met yet. And he’s not even met you but assumes he’ll be happily making love to you for the rest of his life and you’ll do the same. What a disconnect. Oh well, at least the kids will be happy right? Anybody?
March 26th, 2015 at 5:08 am
Men are much better off with the truth.
March 26th, 2015 at 5:11 am
March 26th, 2015 at 5:22 am
The topic of her “sexual best” seems to me a lot like negotiated desire. Why argue about it? Why demand something? You either make her tingles or not. You either take that wild sex from her as you wish, or not. I thought those were Rollo’s basics?
The problem is how marriage with monogamy, provisioning, the husband always willing to fuck her etc kills her tingles and any arguing, shaming, demanding wont change that.
I think the manosphere’s concept of hypergamy is flawed since it is build upon a male or rational view. The manosphere seems to believe hypergamy would be women consciously and intelligently maximizing their af/bb interests. I don’t think that’s true. From what I’ve seen “hypergamy” is just a quite primitive set of hormonal/emotional reactions of women that surprisingly often yield good results (for her) in maximizing those interests. Therefor it seems “intelligent” and rational but in reality it is not at all. Women aren’t even capable of that rational thinking, it’s just an illusion, your hamster spinning so you don’t feel that alone around those animals.
Therefor the issue with her sexual past is not a matter of morality or “getting her best”. The problem with her sexual past is how it drives up the level of performance needed from the man to be “the best”, to make her reach new and overwhelming levels of desire or lust for you. And she has no conscious control about that, which makes it impossible for her to keep that past (or the memories of it) out of the marriage. Exciting sex is a slippery slope and the further out she has been before, the further out you have to go with her to truly reach her “sexual best”. The problem with bitches is: they are burned and can’t be repaired.
March 26th, 2015 at 6:04 am
Please Rollo do an article regarding couple fights.Why males beat females…and why females fight.
March 26th, 2015 at 6:50 am
@Rollo
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201308/what-do-women-really-want
Not sure if the above link would be of any interest.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:19 am
No wonder the woman in the Reddit story feels aggrieved. She played a blinder according to the sex-pos fembot handbook’s plan for female fulfillment. She sampled many, many empowering cocks, some at the same time, did drugs, drank, partied hard and then…just before she turned thirty she locked down a great provider in marriage. You go gurl!
And the whole thing brought low because some girl she likely prude-shamed back in college waited ten years to deliver the perfect coup-de-grace / revenge-cunt-punt…by telling part of the truth. It would be even sweeter if we leaned that the ‘friend’ was invited there for boasting purposes…look what I got!
Now she has to move away completely and change job (maybe industry too) because she’ll have an inexplicable (if she’s honest) divorce to explain away to the next sucker. And while her empowering cock-carouseling past may have originally been known only to a few. it’s now an open secret at work, rest and play. Her ‘friend’ just blew her entire life away.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:28 am
@Newgal
I’m aware of your predicament. Your past can not be undone. But, to a worthy man you can explain, and emphasize that you made mistakes, and you TRULY repent your behaviour.
Second, behave with Femininity. Drop the orbiters, “friends”, bullshit. Level the playing field darling. Are you willing to do that?
Show a man that you can give, you can be vulnerable, you can appreciate. Read Dalrocks posts on what it means to embody femininity.
a RP man wants a Woman. Not a testasterone fueled “porn queen.” Be what nature made you my dear. A woman. Understand your opportunistic love and allow it to be guided by a worthy man.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:35 am
My above comments were pertaining the idea of marriage and commitment in your future. Not some bullshit LTR or two month hook up.
If you want to enjoy all the Alphas, more power to you my lady. Just know that you will be pumped, dumped, and be a regular in a soft harem. But, the gina tingles will be hawwwtt..
As I tell my nieces and daughter, ” Make your choice. Own up to it.”
March 26th, 2015 at 8:48 am
There is so much tragedy in our plight as men.
We want to believe we are loved, treasured, cherished just for being ourselves. Reality is much harsher, as Rollo points out.
In most cases we are pawns in a woman’s game. Subjects of a Female Imperative. Not even slaves. They are threatened and subjugated. Most men ( our brethen) VOLUNTEER out of their own free will for a life of subservient platitude. Such joy!
These are the conditions women do not want you to know. You must not be aware of hypergamy, just its servant. You are just supposed to marry them when THEY are ready and give them always YOUR best. I do not curse, but my response is FUCK THAT.
March 26th, 2015 at 9:21 am
@ Realist:
“What I’m getting at here is that her desire is subconsciously driven. To a certain extent, there is nothing you can do about it (aside from working out, or tweaking your physique) so it’s best to keep moving on utill one finds you desirable. Even then, it really is a gamble since I’m willing to bet that a man’s rejection rate is tied into his desirability rating to MOST if not ALL women.”
Yeah, that’s a good one, and I bet that Rollo has touched on it before.
The fact is that only about 20 to 25% of men inspire those sorts of feral sexual desires in most women.
But the flip side of that is it’s likely one of the “80%” can inspire feral sexual desires in a less attractive woman. And, that feral sexual desire is a flash in the pan, so to speak. It can spark a relationship.
And sexual attraction isn’t always the same thing as feral “fuck fuck fuck me now” behavior. Female sexual attraction expresses itself across a wide spectrum in the same woman. Sometimes it’s “fuck me now”; sometimes it’s more subtle. I have to say thoughtthat the “fuck me now” expression is the most authentic form. It’s also the one that men view as most authentic because it speaks directly to us. It mirrors the male expression of sexual desire. “Let’s fuck now” is the sexual expression we men understand best.
I’m also on record at dalrock’s as saying that a lot of men are never going to find a woman who feels this “fuck me now” way about them. A lot of men are not sexually attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of any woman long term. They just aren’t.
March 26th, 2015 at 9:46 am
@Buena Vista… “labeled me a “dysfunctional pessimist no one wants to be around.”
You’re not that.
March 26th, 2015 at 9:47 am
“My issue is with the contradictory teachings here. You advocate for men to spin plates and keep it casual- definitely to sleep with them for a while before handing out any kind of commitment. Yet for a women to be considered worthy of a commitment she has to be the kind of woman that won’t be a plate. You understand that if women started doing what you want them to do, none of you would ever get laid.”
Ah. I see the problem now.
This site is not about getting women to “do what [we] want them to do”. This site is in part about teaching men about female nature: what women are, and what they do, and what they respond to.
If this site were about getting women to “do what [we] want them to do”, and giving advice to women were left up to me, deti, it would look something like this:
_______________________
Male nature seeks to spread seed far and wide. Male nature is to deposit seed in as many good looking and willing receptacles as possible, for as long as possible, with as little expenditure of time and resources as possible. All straight men want to do this. There are a few men who are good at this naturally; some have learned to do this; most will give it the old college try but aren’t all that good at it.
Your objective is to find one good man who you’re sexually attracted to and who will stay with you. The best way to do this is to avoid the men who are learned at seduction. Those men will be happy to have sex with you but will never commit to you (unless you are a female manosphere blogger). They will satisfy you sexually but will not father your children or support you. If you really want a long term marriage, ignore and avoid players, because in the words of the prophetess Stevie Nicks, “Players only love you when they’re playin’.” Pay no attention to players, cads and Dark Triad students. For the love of God, don’t have sex with them.
Look among the “college try” men for one who you are or could be sexually attracted to and who will stay with you. Look for one who has a backbone and who won’t put up with your drama, your shit testing, and your complaints. And then slowly give him sexual access in exchange for his commitment. Do not have sex with him until you have a solid commitment from him in the form of marital engagement and he is locked in — and until you are locked in too. If you have done it right, this man is the only man you’ve had sex with, and you will be married by age 25. If you have not locked it down by the time you are 25, you did it wrong.
This is your one and only chance. Mulligans and do-overs exist only in golf and Jenga– not in love and not in marriage. Let me disabuse you of any fantasies you have that if this doesn’t work out, you can get a better one. You can’t. You won’t. It isn’t going to happen. This is it, babe. It’s this, or alpha widowhood.
Those are your choices. I realize that these will require you to be careful. I realize that this requires you make hard decisions. I realize you won’t get to have lots of sexy fun time with the hawt guys. But if you want happiness and long-lasting love, then you do it this way. Avoid the players, the cads, and the “ladies men”. Avoid “sexy fun time” with hot men. Find a man you ordinarily wouldn’t pay a lot of attention to. See if any of them are standouts. And lock one of them down by age 25.
March 26th, 2015 at 9:48 am
I think this story puts some light on a few other differences between male and female. Men put a premium on things like truth and honor. Women put a premium on the feels. Even if this women is sincere, she is putting a premium on the feels when she decides not to come clean. “No need to upset anyone”. In her solipsism she had no idea how her man feels about truth and honor and is probably genuinely confused about why this is all happening. As said by others, the guy is more pissed about the lie, because truth means that much to us.
March 26th, 2015 at 10:27 am
@Spawny Get
She is incensed because the self-identity she built up, which is tied to all of the slutting it up early in life and excused by the feminine matrix as “empowerment”… is now being REJECTED by a man she had invested herself in. She’s feeling something close to a 10-on-richter-scale rejection.
I do feel a small amount of pity for her situation, very tiny, like no-see-um-size. But really, this kind of nuclear rejection is something more married women should be feeling, and then publicly screaming about. We need the women to wail loud enough that the girls in high school hear it.
March 26th, 2015 at 10:29 am
@Jeremy – I laughed, good comment.
@deti – I almost feel like showing your advice to some girls I know. If I thought they’d react with anything but indignation, “how dare you think I’d sleep around!” Ah well, hamsters gonna hamp.
Newgal amuses me. She thinks her words are like some magic spell that compel agreement – “Huh, it didn’t work. They were supposed to acknowledge my perspective as legitimate…. Here, let me try saying the same thing again, maybe it’ll catch this time. Christ, men think they’re so logical and so you try logic and look what happens….”
March 26th, 2015 at 10:37 am
Newgal is just another woman pretending she has no power over sexual selection. She’s been pretending to have no say in the sex act for so long, she actually believes that women somehow have no say in how or when they have sex. She is incapable of understanding that women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men are the gatekeepers of commitment. This flies in the face of her claiming to be a “red pill” woman, because she’s still denying her own part in the dance, expecting men to pick up the slack.
Ultimately, she’s behaving no differently than any other woman who visits the comment threads on Rollo’s site. She’s dumping her hypergamous problems on men and demanding we optimize things for her.
Not buying it, newgal, or any other woman reading. Your dual-goal hypergamous pulls are your problem. You solve them yourself. And, if you would be so kind, try to be adults about it and find a solution that does not detonate civilization. I recommend using your sexuality to inspire your LTR man to work hard and produce. That worked VERY WELL in the past.
March 26th, 2015 at 10:46 am
Newgal,
Go to the RPW reddit and read, read, read.
This site is for men’s sexual strategies. Women’s are going to be very different.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:16 am
@Jeremy
“We need the women to wail loud enough that the girls in high school hear it.”
Women with honour in the older cohort would be telling their younger sisters that men don’t want to marry sluts (a phenomenon seen in good men known as ‘save the next guy’. A code of honour among test pilots / astronauts / soldiers etc). Women don’t do that, they always place their own pride and position in the crab bucket above helping the next generation). maybe ‘save the next guyorgurl’ is a patriarchal construct?
March 26th, 2015 at 11:22 am
@ Sun: “The reason women get upset is because men won’t apply the female standard for men to women, instead applying a standard (self-control: don’t overeat, don’t fuck everything that moves) that women find difficult to live up to. When women bitch about a “double standard” it’s really their way of complaining we’re not all using their standard.
Female solipsism at its finest.”
Brilliant!
March 26th, 2015 at 11:25 am
Well, I have news for you (picking up jacket, purse), women, including me, like those things, and I would like those things…its like you are saying THEY were good enough for that but…”MAN: “Whoa! What’s with all the insecurity…you asked me about what I wanted now…that was all in my past, I’m a different person now, HOLY SHIT you are judgmental…just because I had (and did) those things with THOSE WOMEN doesn’t mean I want that forever, or even with you, I really like you and you are different than those women:WOMAN (tears): “YA? so different that you spoiled them with trips, jewelry and your “best” but all you want from me as a mother (and not even a housewife), who “works” and is “equal” and pops out babies??? Are you fucking kidding me? [walking away]MAN: “I cannot BELIEVE how insecure you are…the fact that you aren’t as attractive ISN’T THE ONLY THING ON MY LIST OF WHAT’S IMPORTANT” [as she opens door to leave, other customers looking, the men shaking head in disbelief that she could be so insecure and selfish…
ROCK ON SCOTTY!
March 26th, 2015 at 11:41 am
ISTO,
Don’t forget about the m/f difference relating to the making of a man or woman, as in, “made me who I am today”.
I’ve yet to meet a man who has claimed that random sex or any variety of sexual adventuring has made him WHO he is today. Sampling vaginas do not make a man. But somehow we are implored to understand that sampling penises makes a woman WHO she is today.
What makes the man is what affords him access to sex in the first place. He must already be this man to be desired, valued. Men know in their bones that this is entirely on them to create and maintain. Sure, there were likely lessons learned, but it is never about the actual sex, nor is it really about the relationships or their approximations. Those are part of the outcomes of his decisions, his actions, what kind of man he chose to be in those moments.
What makes the man are his choices, his actions, his decisions to better himself through direct application of his energy and then doing the best he can to build upon the experiences based on the outcomes of those actions.
Somewhere along the line women were excused from future-time orientation while men were instructed to double down. The “someday a woman will appreciate your efforts, your value” etc. worked as long as the someday happened in a reasonable period of time during which he was held in the dark.
Men could delude themselves – with plenty of help from the FI and his BP upbringing, as they watched women “explore their sexuality” or prioritize all matters of personal indulgences in HS or college, even a few years into the workforce. But for how long? All while men were instructed to always work toward that future self, to better the self in order to take their place in waiting.
These days women desire the beta-in-waiting model to be applied to an untenable time horizon. The wheels have come off that particular cart. The combination of access to information and women’s increasingly brazen displays of open hypergamy and dualistic (and often cross-purposed) sexual approach to men is instructing many men (even unconsciously) of the extremely lopsided model of sexual and relational standards.
We are all well aware of the outcomes of this awareness on an individual and societal basis. Unfortunately, women continue to demonstrate their rigid denial of their role in any of this.
Among the epiphany and post-wall woman I encounter, the “who I am today” rationalization is almost AWALT. And the few that don’t hold this up are those who show the other side of the same coin: making up for missing out. This “experience” is so paramount now that it is a source of pride, until such time that it must be repackaged for the beta-in-waiting as essential to her transcendence into wifely desires.
All of her past decisions, primarily relating to sexual indulgences and “failed” relationships*, are what made her WHO she is today. The implication being that she would not be the same person had she not had her sexual adventures or variety of men or alpha assholes during her 20’s. And this rationale is lovely in its scalability.
(*post facto definitions of relationships are essential to crafting her narrative. The continuum of what constitutes a relationship will shift accordingly.)
The irony is that she is partly correct: who she is today does include her past. Just not in the ways she desires. My first instinct upon hearing this is simply: gross. This rationalization rings so hollow that I have a hard time maintaining respect for her. I can’t help but to see this as not owning her past decisions; a weakness of character. And the implications it casts as potentially manipulative are profound.
The problem is that all women use this to some extent. Even those who can count their N on TWO HANDS. Suggesting two hands is more honorable than three hands. Which of course must mean that N matters, and not just N, but that each successive N matters (in the negative) which of course means that a ONE HAND N is more honorable than a TWO HAND N. But the slope only slips one direction in her mind. Without the second hand of N’s, she would not be the person he now “loves”.
The story of her past is reliant on the alchemy of N. The negative of each successive N is recast into a positive element of her overall experience; a necessity in making her in who she is, thus something positive, valuable.
I see N as similar to fatness. A heavy women will look down on a fat woman for her fatness. A fat woman will look down on an obese woman for her obesity. An obese woman will look down on the thin woman for obviously being a bitch. The relavatism and pluralistic ignorance drown out all matters of personal responsibility. All while the majority of men desire a relatively thin woman. To which ALL women reply: you are a shallow, superficial jerk, aka beauty is on the inside.
So these women desire their past to coexist with the present in some state of dissonance in which men are expected to swallow whole. Her past choices are meaningful, as in, valuable experiences that made her who she is, but also meaningless, as in, does not imply decision making abilities, prioritization, future-time orientation, and thus should not instruct us on her values, morals, or how she holds her sexuality.
And then in further irony, when this dissonance is called out, they reduce it to a binary view of necessity, a la, sluthod is necessary because men desire sex. Rigid is their aversion to responsibility.
While I don’t hold the view that women over 30 are all used up or whatever, I do think that it calls into question her choices, priorities, and ability to plan for a future as something other than her Self.
IOW, things I value in a wife. So the longer the time horizon, the more I will expect her to own those decisions, to demonstrate decision making and priorities congruent with her stated desires, to bring to the table experience that is actually accretive to a marriage and not just some narrative of personal transcendence.
Unfortunately, it is most often a sell job, a desire to put the genie back in the bottle. When this is attempted, it just confirms the depreciation they desire to repackage; without her ownership of her past and demonstrable character qualities, whatever she “learned” or whatever growth occurred as a result of her choices – sexual or otherwise, are of little value to me or our future together. So I don’t buy depreciating assets; I rent them.
March 26th, 2015 at 11:50 am
Heh… This brought to mind some engineer humor.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world… those who understand alternate number systems, and those who don’t.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:02 pm
That’s because ‘sampling’ literally does make a woman who she is today. In an age when an unrestricted Hypergamy is the highest social priority for women, and made obligatory for men, sampling as many Alphas as her looks will afford before settling on a Beta makes pragmatic sense.
I explained this in The Myth of the Good Guy, the man who somehow magically embodies the best of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks isn’t believable to women, and in fact women don’t want those qualities in the same man at the same time – they want different men for different purposes.
As such they don’t expect (or really even want) to find Mr. Perfect (perfect is boring). Solution: sample as many Alpha cocks as possible and/or as needed for as long as she’s able to outcompete her sexual rivals for that attention, settle on Mr. Good Enough for long term security and parental investment, and rely on social conventions that absolve you of any duplicity by excusing those Alpha cocks as learning experiences that led her to Mr. Good Enough.
It’s pragmatic and brilliant when you think about it. It’s an exquisite solution to the problem of a dual mating strategy.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
@Newgal
I really don’t like the tone of the responses to your post, because I see your questions as being asked in good faith. I hope you don’t bail entirely on the “manosphere” despite that reaction. There’s a complex set of interlocking ideas here, and people who read this kind of stuff frequently probably start to see it as so intuitive that they forget what it looks like to a newcomer.
Anyway, this might not be obvious at first glance but I think most of the people “spinning plates” are trying to make the best of a bad situation. There is plenty of commentary here involving guys saying how much they would prefer stable LTRs with good women to laying random club whores. In fact I am impressed by the fact that I haven’t really seen anyone here pretend that having to game randoms is an ideal situation. Of course a lot of the ideas here extend way beyond the “pick up artist” situation, to ideas of attraction between the sexes in general—which is also applicable to LTRs and marriage. Even at the most PUA-ish blog (Heartiste), the need to engage in shenanigans is seen as part of a massive story of civilizational decline.
In short, I think most of the men involved in these conversations would not be bothered by your projected outcome—a society where traditional mores upheld and marriage was the main path to women.
“You advocate for men to spin plates and keep it casual- definitely to sleep with them for a while before handing out any kind of commitment. Yet for a women to be considered worthy of a commitment she has to be the kind of woman that won’t be a plate.”
Yes. That’s right. A woman who exercises some discipline and self-control and doesn’t engage in disgusting behavior in college is worthy of commitment.
Because there are so few such women left, most men have no choice but to find some other way to satisfy their needs.
“My only mistake it seems is agreeing to be casual with a man I want a relationship from. I better put a stop to that now, I guess.”
Yes, that’s right. In fact, a lot of women come to this realization, but only after doing it too many times. It’s irreversible, as the divorced woman’s story shows.
Here’s the part that’s unfair to you, and to girls in general—everyone around you condones this behavior and no one is sending a clear message about why it’s wrong and not likely to lead to a good result. An enormous wave of unattached women is about to hit the society; women who were basically deceived by feminism into thinking they could play the Sheryl Sandberg game—what people here colorfully call the “cock carousel.”
I do think it’s unfair to girls that are told society permits them to do one thing, and then suddenly realize that society (well, men) demands something different. In a very similar way, it is unfair to guys who are told that they should be kind, hardworking, develop a successful career, and buy into “equalism,” to suddenly discover that none of that shit turns women on.
Until we return to a better system, both sides will suffer. But women absolutely hold the cards here. They do now, as they always have, control access to sex. Men will very predictably behave in the ways they think will unlock that access.
You decide.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:11 pm
@Spawny
“Women with honour in the older cohort would be telling their younger sisters that men don’t want to marry sluts…”
Exactly. To me, this lack of instructing the next generation as to the risks, trade-offs, costs of certain decisions and priorities is one of the biggest tells of women’s lack of ownership; their desire to avoid personal responsibilities/outcomes in favor of doubling-down on the control and manipulation of how men view, value, and respond to those past choices.
In fact, most often I see these women – who are in the midst of dealing with the outcomes of their decisions, i.e. single at 35 and can’t find a good man to marry/commit, instructing young women to engage in the same things they did. To travel, drop the boring BF and go adventure, to get that masters degree (debt be damned), to experience a wide-variety of men so they will know what they really want when they are ready to settle.
I know why they don’t tell cautionary tales. They must not upset their own rationalization cart. But what they also fail to see (own) is that in cheering on the younger generation they are propping up the competition for these so-called good men; inspiring younger versions of themselves to decouple sex from relationships, choices from responsibility, and the present from the future.
They are directly feeding into the very same forces that are working against their (now) desire to secure commitment. They are assuring that the value of sex in the SMP remain low while simultaneously expecting men to see their personal sexuality as something worthy of a lifelong commitment.
Most men will caution younger men against marriage or commitment too young just like women now caution younger women. The difference is, men are responding to the realistic devaluations of such, as evidenced by women’s choices in real-time, while women desire to attribute value according to their desires over time.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
I had a guy on Twitter suggest I direct the next RM book towards women.
I told him I’d need to hire a good children’s book illustrator first.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:12 pm
Rollo – “That’s because ‘sampling’ literally does make a woman who she is today.”
Yes!
It makes her unsuitable for serious consideration for marriage. It makes her an unpaid prostitute, a junk bond quality investment. It makes her incapable of honoring commitments from any man.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:18 pm
Ouch… ok, my comment was likely mean… but Rollo’s cut deeper.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:20 pm
Razorwire – “They are assuring that the value of sex in the SMP remain low while simultaneously expecting men to see their personal sexuality as something worthy of a lifelong commitment.”
Actually I think they want men to commit to them based on their value exclusive of sex. What that non-sexual value is and why any man would commit to that without the sexual component is beyond my ability to imagine. But is does strike me that this is what they do when accept a commitment from the Beta provider. They value everything but his sexual value, which to them doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Agreed, but women rely on men’s sexual deprivation to solve that problem. It progressively disqualifies women from the men they believe are their SMV equals (financially, intellectually and physically), but there’s no shortage of Plan B Betas ready to take their turn with her. All it takes is buying into the social convention and pushing all incongruity out of their heads.
This is exactly why just pre and post-Wall women’s most common complaint is having to settle for men they feel aren’t their equals – really a +1 – +2 SMV Hypergamous optimal man. Those guys are out of their reach by the time they have their Epiphany and even the Plan B men can’t ignore the duplicity as Hypergamy becomes more and more open.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:25 pm
@downunder
>> My wife tells me each time one of her old male “friends” messages her on FB. I call that game. After 22 years of marriage
Total BS isn’t it ! Had it happen with LTR’s. And I love it when you do the same for fun, got a message from this gal and their Hamster goes in overdrive! I’m a firm believer of no married woman (or man) needs facebook. If you want it, then you have a “couple” account for the family, thats it. No good comes from Facebook for Married couples.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:27 pm
“It’s pragmatic and brilliant when you think about it. It’s an exquisite solution to the problem of a dual mating strategy.”
Indeed it is. Particularly the built-in scalability. Who is to say how much or what kind of sampling is necessary to make her complete?
Whats more tedious and disheartening to me is not the “different men for different purposes” but it is the notion of obligatory acceptance by men and the constant efforts to stifle the male corollary as well as steal his right to decide for himself the answer to the question above in terms of his investment in her.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:32 pm
@notalifeguard
But… you just got explaining how facebook accounts could be used for a form of soft dread… sounds like some good can come from it.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:38 pm
I direct the next RM book towards women.
LOL. No.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:39 pm
@Razorwire
Yes, but… all of those adult behaviors were abandoned because they were part of the patriarchy holding women down. Women of the previous two generations *willfully* abandoned their posts and called it “progress”.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:39 pm
@BP
“Actually I think they want men to commit to them based on their value exclusive of sex. ”
This could well be the case, but to your point, I rarely see women highlighting (offering) anything beyond their sexuality. The idea of sexual exclusivity, which is really what commitment in any form outside of marriage entails at its core, suggests that the (her) sexuality is now sacred.
This is about her. Her sexuality is sacred. His is assumed. If she valued him as a sexual being first, he would have no need to put his commitment on the table until/unless he saw those other values in her, to which she would need to demonstrate for him.
Everything else is business as usual. She will share all parts of herself with all matters of other men, but for their sex (in this form of “commitment”.) These are the same women who are friends with exes, who entertain orbiters at work, church, on the kickball team. Who live in facebook land and who will likely straddle that dual-path in perpetuity.
These are also the ones who have a nice rock on the finger but openly flirt to the precipice of propositioning me while on ski holidays with their BFF’s.
March 26th, 2015 at 12:54 pm
@Jeremy
lol, progress. I know we are all just suffering the growing pains of this progression.
It is why, when feeling particularly cantankerous, I dismiss marriage – even sexual exclusivity, as archaic relics of the oppressive patriarchy and tell her I desire her to be free, to continue to evolve and explore; that I would never desire to cage such a beautiful bird.
Be free my little bird! Who am I, but a tree, with a branch for her to perch upon, so she may sing her song until such time she desires to take flight to a taller tree.
But then, being a tree with many branches, it is equally natural and just that other birds should see me as a pleasant place to nest for a time, and sing their song too.
After all, I’ve plenty of branches. Just as there are plenty of trees for her. In fact, she has already nested in many. This is all natural. The way it was intended. Progression toward this natural state of equality is a beautiful thing. Right?
March 26th, 2015 at 12:55 pm
” . . . the ones who have a nice rock on the finger . . .”
Which they haven’t removed, because the rock is part of the proposition.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:08 pm
@Lucien
There is plenty of commentary here involving guys saying how much they would prefer stable LTRs with good women to laying random club whores.
Absolutely. If I’m being 100% honest, I’d rather my last relationship have worked out to a long term thing. She was a beautiful, smart chick that I would have been happy to settle down with, maybe even raise a few kids with eventually. They woulda been cute, no doubt about it.
Instead, off to the cock carousel she headed. My N is now sitting in the 20 range. I never intended to get there. I’d have been happy to meet one awesome chick at 20 years old and never bothered with all the bullshit a guy has to go through to learn how to spin plates. I’d rather not have gone through 25 years of getting rejected by women and being reassured I am undesirable.
Once made aware of the dynamics at play though, I realize my expectations (meet one woman who’s as crazy about me as I am about her while we’re young and have a great life together) were never realistic despite my best intentions and hard work. Now I’m offered the opportunity with used up CC riders, divorcees, single moms, fat chicks, and psychos? No thanks, I’d rather just work out how to continuously get laid by attractive women if that’s my best option.
In fact I am impressed by the fact that I haven’t really seen anyone here pretend that having to game randoms is an ideal situation.
Probably because the majority of us have realized that having to bitch about it is pointless. We want to get laid, and we won’t get it by complaining. We’ll get it by learning to accept the new reality and get what we can out of it. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than spending all our time bitter and complaining about it. Doesn’t mean we wouldn’t prefer things to be otherwise though.
“My only mistake it seems is agreeing to be casual with a man I want a relationship from. I better put a stop to that now, I guess.”
Yes, that’s right. In fact, a lot of women come to this realization, but only after doing it too many times. It’s irreversible, as the divorced woman’s story shows.
She’s mid-30s and expecting men to fall in line with the BB half of the script but hasn’t gotten any of them to do it already. It’s most likely too late for her. Not saying she shouldn’t try, but it’s most likely too late.
@Rollo
I told him I’d need to hire a good children’s book illustrator first.
I’d vote for Maurice Sendak if he weren’t dead.
This is exactly why just pre and post-Wall women’s most common complaint is having to settle for men they feel aren’t their equals – really a +1 – +2 SMV Hypergamous optimal man. Those guys are out of their reach by the time they have their Epiphany and even the Plan B men can’t ignore the duplicity as Hypergamy becomes more and more open.
And this is exactly why I don’t want what we’re allowed to settle down with in modern society. A Post-Wall woman quite literally decides she’s unattractive enough now that she should get married. Think about that. She knows the main thing she has to offer/attract me with is now failing, so she’s got to get me to accept that. If I told her I was on the downward side of my career, looks, social acumen, and status already, she’d shit on the idea of keeping me. But I’m asked to accept the feminine analog from her.
At the same time, she’s pining for the guy who was +1 to +2 to her in her prime. He’s now a +3 or +4. Why the hell would I want a woman who’s lusting after that guy while “settling” for me? I want a woman I genuinely want, not somebody I “settle” on. Part of wanting her is seeing a genuine, consistent arousal and desire for me in her eyes. If she ain’t got that, it’s casting my pearls before swine (literally, with the size of modern American women) to give her my commitment.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:12 pm
This reminds me of speaking with my twenty year old cousin last year. She’s gorgeous, a fashion model, and a straight A student from an intact religious upper class family. Oh and she was a “virgin” whose parents were encouraging her to marry a 25 year old Italian surgeon. Gorgeous man as well. We spoke for a few weeks where I learned that she was a virgin in name only and confused by the feminist propaganda about why anyone would care about her virginity. She was also deathly afraid of “settling”. In her fairy princess imagination the King, the top most alpha in the world, would one day deign to marry her in a scenario much like Fifty Shades.
I told her the RP truths. She decided that she wants to move to Sweden where women are “free”. Free, of course, meaning free of any responsibility for her own choices and free to optimize her hypergamy.
In ten years she’ll be looking for that beta bucks and I really doubt she’ll have a hot Italian surgeon from a monied family waiting around for her.
The very idea that diligence and cultivating a good character would lead her to a happy life was beyond her. All she could see was all the alpha cock she would miss out on. All the fun. And all her friends were having so much “fun”. For whatever reason women do not seem to understand that hard work in the present leads to happiness in the future. They just want to live in paradise all the time. Let the slaves do the hard work.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:19 pm
Rules … Accountablility … Agency … I guess these are things women don’t apply to themselves …
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2015/03/25/scottsdale-yoga-instructor-sex-abuse-abrk/70427542/
“After the other adults had left the party or had gone to sleep, police said, Radomski invited seven boys into a room and let them fondle her breasts.
The other boys then left the room, and investigators said Radomski performed oral sex on a 15-year-old boy.”
I guess this 32 year old (post wall) woman had to “make do” with under-age boys since no man will touch her. She’s not the only predator (e.g. aggressive woman rapist of under-age boys) roaming the street. Guard your young men / boys from older women. It’s funny how they project their desire’s of under-age abuse onto men. And, the media run’s with it hook line and sinker.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:25 pm
“Actually I think they want men to commit to them based on their value exclusive of sex. What that non-sexual value is and why any man would commit to that without the sexual component is beyond my ability to imagine. But is does strike me that this is what they do when accept a commitment from the Beta provider. They value everything but his sexual value, which to them doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter.”
Right. And the reasons for a woman’s expectation of commitment from the Beta provider without the sexual component are that it removes the expectation that she will have to “measure up” to his sexual desires and needs. Excising the sexual component also removes his ability to judge her for her sexual past.
But most importantly, in her jaded eyes, removing the sexual component equalizes them. It brings her on a par with him. Nothing he brings to the relationship can be more important than anything she brings. And he cannot use “the sex thing” as a bludgeon or a cudgel. She doesn’t want to use sex as a weapon or bargaining chip, because that lowers her. He can’t lord his financial contributions over her. Sex and gender don’t matter. They’re supposed to be “equal”.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:35 pm
The feminists are right. Marriage is a social construct. What they’re wrong about is assuming that it just “happens” in life once they’re “ready” for it. The unhappy reality for everyone’s sexual strategies is that marriage is the opposite of the law of the jungle and nature, and it has demands. It’s a discipline really. The effectiveness of birth control, the advocating of abortion, and –as a culture– our unreasonable assumption that true freedom can exist without responsibility does not foster a culture of marriage.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:56 pm
@Sun Wukong & Lucien
There’s no disagreement to be made here. I feel I must point out that Lucien’s point about the dearth of men in the manosphere who espose plate-spinning as the ideal solution is an excellent point that I have never seen discussed at length in the manosphere. That point being that manosphere solutions are not a grand construct of ideal masculinity, they’re stop-gap measured responses to female sexual choices. If women don’t like male responses to how women guard the gates of sex, they have only themselves to blame. Doing so is like blaming the Germans for reunification… they only reacted to the guard being pulled from the wall.
In my head I imagine women come to the manosphere expecting that men are cooking up some “final solution” to the “women problem”. With something absurd like that in mind they then apply their thoughts on what is written here as if it explains base male desire. They seem to habitually and reflexively strip all context (meaning female choices) that lead men to the manosphere.
To me, this comes back down to a comment that you often see repeated by different women in the manosphere. That is that women have no concept of just how simple men are. All male thoughts are seen from the context of the FI by women, which means they nearly always misinterpret by presuming men think like women.
I also make no apologies for tone directed at women who come here and are unable to shed their FI-bias. You don’t get people to question their thoughts with coddling.
March 26th, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Rules … Accountability … Agency … are all things women apply to others and not themselves.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2015/03/25/scottsdale-yoga-instructor-sex-abuse-abrk/70427542/
“After the other adults had left the party or had gone to sleep, police said, Radomski invited seven boys into a room and let them fondle her breasts.
The other boys then left the room, and investigators said Radomski performed oral sex on a 15-year-old boy.”
I guess this 32 year old (post wall) woman had to “make do” with the only male’s that would touch her.
It’s time to for women to stop projecting onto men what women are doing in great numbers. Women have (via the FI) gotten the media and the other willing participant’s to make all men full-fledged child rapists just by virtue of being a male. So much so that if you’re a man and walking a park that happens to have children running around you are watched like a child predator. When in fact it is th wimminz that are the child predator’s.
Hey
ladiesferal zombies … the day is coming that we will have you marked, literally, for your behavior. And, it will be more than a Scarlet A that will apply regarding the markings.March 26th, 2015 at 2:02 pm
Razorwire – “This could well be the case, but to your point, I rarely see women highlighting (offering) anything beyond their sexuality. ”
Maybe because that’s all they have to offer. Anything else is merely a list of wants to be fulfilled. They’re only offering sex because they also enjoy it. They are not offering anything that looks like labor, support, or effort because they don’t want to do those things unless those things are of no cost or consequence to them.
If course I’m a cynic, but when I hear women talk about “working on our relationship” what they always mean is her work is to get him to fulfill her wants/needs. I’ve never heard any woman talk about how she needs to do something, some labor for the benefit of her man that does not also directly benefit her. Though I’ve heard several say they should do certain things and that they resent the necessity of the should, and resent the man that should know better than want or need those things.
March 26th, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Jeremey
“That point being that manosphere solutions are not a grand construct of ideal masculinity, they’re stop-gap measured responses to female sexual choices. If women don’t like male responses to how women guard the gates of sex, they have only themselves to blame.”
I made the exact same point here regarding women’s irateness over the MGTOW strategy:
“Throughout all of history and the evils of Patriarchy (if it ever existed) no man, NO MAN.. has ever said “We don’t need women for anything!”.. at least not until the most bitterly burnt men started to coalesce within the manosphere. Those of us that survived the fires now preach to those that still hurt, women ARE not the enemy, FEMINISM is. Until feminism reared it’s ugly head, men never grew up saying “A man needs a woman like lion needs cutlery.” or some stupid shit like that. No. We knew we needed women.”
https://whoism3.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/ian-vox-sexbots-mgtow-sports-metaphors-dancing-and-a-man-with-boobs-i-mock-it/
March 26th, 2015 at 2:14 pm
I had a guy on Twitter suggest I direct the next RM book towards women.
Do it!!!!!!!!!
Like another epistle from st. Rollo.
Dearly beloved, …
March 26th, 2015 at 2:23 pm
Ugh…
The article reminds me of a relationship I had after drawing a bunch of “Alpha cards” from the deck that is the manosphere.
Having some issues with internalizing the new RP material, I deliberately played only the “Beta cards” (with a poker face on) in a bit of “scientific experimentation”. I needed to not only test myself to establish what’s right/wrong with my BP outlooks/philosophies (troubleshoot), but to test the trump-like power of those “Alpha Cards” and their merit overall.
Boy, did this one chick claim to “love” me after having moved in and experienced my perfect “beta-in-waiting” treatment.
After gaining weight, she started pulling “disappearing acts” where she would stay out into the wee-wee hours “with friends”. I mean, like, “on cue”, exactly as one might expect.
I could only handle the trauma of those disappearing acts for so long, so I called her to the carpet. That was nice for a week or two, and it happened again. Ok, I’ll do the beta thing, one more chance. Again, week or two, same thing.
She came home around 4 or 5 in the morning to me sitting at the dinner table waiting: “Pack your things. You’ve got a week to be out of here.”
Her: “Buh… I…”
V: “Save it. You’re gone.”
Her: “But I love you!!”
V: “If this is how you love, then, your love SUCKS, and I don’t want it anymore.”
Her: (look of shock/horror, pause) “[Vulpine], I have a coke problem.”
V: *PShfff… chuckles* “Nice… That doesn’t matter, now, does it?. Had you told me sooner, back when there was trust, back when I gave a shit, before the bullshit excuses for your disappearing acts, you might’ve had a different reaction. But, the trust is gone, and you’re gone: take your problems with you.” *stands up, goes to bed*
Her: “YOU FUCKER!! I tell you I have a drug problem and you kick me out!!??!!!”
V: “NooOO. I kicked you out; THEN you told me you had a drug problem. Good night.”
She left in a tizzy, wasted, to go back to the dealer’s house (presumably to do more coke and continue with the coke-sex where she left off).
As you could probably expect, her entire circle of friends were coerced to perpetuate her coke lie such that I’d never find out (Shh! He’s totally square!), and she (of course) fabricated a fantastic story of abuse and made sure to rally her circle-of-friends-army around her cause after she got the boot. I was the evil boogey-man, she was an angel, just exchange “coke” for “threesomes” and the rest is the same.
The “beta poker face” doesn’t “work” for shit. It was a fantastic experiment that forever polarized and cemented my views. I got to witness first-hand, with a scientific scrutiny, how women can reverse engineer their justifications/reasoning/logic (and the justifications/reasoning/logic of their female friends, beta orbitors, and family as well) to suit their immediate needs. To this day, I know that women will take all the rope they can get; It’s on me to tie the noose. The better strategy is to show only a noose when prompted to give out any rope.
Now, I’m sure there are women who are reading this and thinking “that guy’s a real shit for not helping her with her drug problem”. What good would it have done me? No, she needed to experience loss in order to motivate her towards health. Truth be told, I left her much better off than I found her, though she’d never admit that to anyone else, much less herself.
Poor girl, I’m not looking forward to that “epiphany” or “hit the wall” phone call undoubtedly forthcoming…
“[Vulpine]? HeeEEeyyy, It’s “her”. How’ve you been?”
Women: know that every “good man” you can’t find has had the “goodness” trampled, extorted, and generally beat out of them by peers, family, whores, laws, media, etc. They’re out there, SURELY, but they aren’t going to be quick about casting their pearls before swine. “Good men” are everywhere, right in front of your face: whether they reveal themselves depends entirely on you. Wanna see some pearls? Quit being swine.
Where the “captain” is the FI, his “black jack” is the court/law system, and the chain gang is the male SMV…
“I’m used to wearin’ the chains, but I’ll never get used to listening to them clinkin': they’ll remind me of what the manosphere’s been sayin’ …for my own good.”
Indeed, I wish “You’d stop treatin’ me so well, Captain.”
March 26th, 2015 at 2:24 pm
“As I mentioned, the expectation is for her husband to accept “who she is today”, yet who she was ten years ago had a more genuine desire for less established, but sexually arousing, lovers. I’m going to speculate here, but it’s likely that a man who owns multiple businesses spent more of his time diligently and (I presume) responsibly cultivating those enterprises than the men his wife took as lovers ten years ago. Again, we can see that as a moral virtue on his part, but there’s a root indignation of what her past represents within the context of his (I assume) responsible past.”
I find a tough reality to face in this paragraph. I find myself having to decide between developing my social and economic status (Basically, my development as a man) and chasing tail. I pull tail but not in the amount that my friends do (Friends that are living check to check, job to job). See, they don’t have careers or hobbies; its like their primary job is trying to get laid. And everything they do revolves around getting laid whereas for me, everything I do is to establish my long term future and establish myself socially. I simply don’t have the time to devote to pussy; the pussy I pull is often times random encounters. The weekends are my primary scavenging time and even the weekends are devoted to other endeavors ( I’m a poker player and gunman). Where I’m going with this. . . Its like the modern man has to pick between getting laid and developing himself and establishing his future. Are you going to spend your 20s chasing and landing women or spend your 20s on yourself and your future?
This chump spent his 20s busting his ass just to wife a cum dumpster who was fucking the YOLO guys that were chasing tail.
March 26th, 2015 at 2:25 pm
Jeez, you guys just don’t get it! FUCK!
‘But for now, I’m glad I could assert what was right for me. I am neither virgin nor whore, and I choose to hold that space proudly, which is not easy to do. I’ve always felt pressured to be one or the other to suit some man’s fantasy. But now, at 36, I can admit that, while I love to screw, I don’t want to be degraded like a porn star, objectified like a whore, and I don’t enjoy being orally raped. Do I want dudes to piss on me? No. Do I want to be pounded so hard I get a vicious bladder infection? No, especially because I have terrible health insurance. Do I want to have a guy spray his cum all over my face while he hovers over me in a state of complete emotional detachment? No.
And at 36 I can also admit that I can’t do casual sex. If I sleep with someone, I start feeling an emotional bond, even though some sex workers and sex writers tell me that attachment is a myth propagated by the patriarchy to keep me sexually disempowered. It doesn’t matter — I can’t do it. Maybe that makes me uncool, unhip and undesirable, but I just don’t care anymore. Do I have to be emotionally attached to sleep with someone? Hell no — if a guy’s got charm and brains and that indefinable sex appeal I’ll want to rip my clothes off. But today, I have to use discretion. Today, I have to be honest with myself, and if I think the guy’s going to bounce the second he gets in my pants, I have to turn him down.”
From here – http://www.salon.com/2015/03/23/the_orgy_prude_how_i_finally_admitted_i_dont_like_meaningless_porn_star_sex/
March 26th, 2015 at 2:26 pm
One of the disconnects with the indignant threesome-loving, soon-to-be-divorcee in the OP, and Newgal, is that they live in a world that every interest, pleasure, and activity that they undertake is “empowering”. They expect to be celebrated by a man of their desire and needs according to their hypergamy lifecycle, their material needs, their random merit badges. If they are not they find fault with a) men; b) history; c) the external world. Noncompliant men are not worthy, not “good”, not “evolved.”
How many times have you been with a woman who’s “empowered” by being an empathetic, thoughtful, intimate, occasionally logical partner to a man? Who accepts that he has priorities, perhaps contradictory impulses to hers? Who takes pride in his unwillingness to supplicate and “Yes, dear …” his way through life?
This is defeat, to feminism, so not so often. Actually this quality is one the four or five attributes that I have in my filter. Even with the good ones (I’ve known four or five in my life, and I have some gray hair), ironically, discussion of socio-sexual matters is destructive, because our society is so permeated with feminist orthodoxy.
So someone who is surrounded by rote affirmation of everything she does simply can’t engage intelligently with any man who is skeptical that having sex-pozzie habits is destructive of any LTR. They just repeat the catechism, namecall and shame, and move on to the next man-rental. That doesn’t end when they marry, if they actually figure, like a contestant in The Stepford Wives (remake) “I can do BETTER!”
For a humorous take on the cheapening of “empowerment” and the collapse of feminist interests from a search for achievement and legal equity, to a culture of juvenile solipsism, see The Onion piece below. (That is where three generations of my family matriculated, incidentally, and understates the current campus’ social pathology.)
http://www.theonion.com/articles/women-now-empowered-by-everything-a-woman-does,1398/
March 26th, 2015 at 2:27 pm
She’s all grown up now!
LMFAROTFP!
March 26th, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Best comment yet for you Rollo –
“I just clicked on that link out of morbid curiosity. Lots of highfalutin armchair psychology and made-up jargon and big dictionary words used out of proper context. Oh, and the misogyny. It was unreadable. Are those losers speaking in some sort of loser code? It reminded me of that leaked video of Tom Cruise talking about how amazing Scientology is – the bizarre lingo, the hive mind, the weird and unnatural phrasing. ”
:)
March 26th, 2015 at 2:52 pm
As I said, I’ll need a children’s book illustrator before I can do a ‘Rational Male For Women’ version of the series.
March 26th, 2015 at 2:55 pm
@DeNihilist
Jeez, you guys just don’t get it! FUCK!
Hehe, that article pretty much reads like the woman that says we don’t get it as she makes it clear she doesn’t get it. You don’t get to decide after the fact that the CC was a bad idea that you’re now tired of. You don’t get to pretend that your “change” matters one whit to the man you eventually plan to con in to marriage. You know damn well the reason you hide that past is because he’ll leave you over it if he’s got half an ounce of dignity and self-respect.
I do agree with Lucien where he said earlier “I do think it’s unfair to girls that are told society permits them to do one thing, and then suddenly realize that society (well, men) demands something different.” Society lies through its teeth to young girls, tells them they can have the AF/BB ride (which many of them can, however the BB phase is starting to disappear), then also tells them they will be happy with it. They’ll be happy settling down with a guy they can’t (not won’t; can’t) want to to fuck for the rest of their lives. That society will be able to convince good men that this is a good arrangement despite being completely against their interests. That a 30 year old post-Wall, post-CC woman will be able to compete with her 23 year old competition on even ground and that the deciders of that competition (men) will change their biologically wired standards to accommodate the lie.
It almost worked, but for the fact that you can’t tell a man’s boner to check its privilege. You can’t tell a guy 33 is hotter than 23. You can’t tell a guy a lithe, youthful body with smooth skin won’t turn him on as much as a Master’s Degree and multiple chins. It just doesn’t work that way. You don’t decide when it’s time for a guy to start considering you marriage material. He decides that. If you missed the window, too bad. Enjoy settling for Billy Beta.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:01 pm
Hey rollo this goes to your tweet on Amber and shit testing
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k3hwP8m6NC0
This clip is the end but the story has such good social dynamics on alpha fucks beta bucks and well dealing with craziness.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Methinks these plan B dudes are the ultimate beta’s –
http://www.medicaldaily.com/back-plan-half-women-relationships-have-plan-b-man-they-can-run-away-305186
March 26th, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Her: (look of shock/horror, pause) “[Vulpine], I have a coke problem.”
Me: “OK, get out NOW! I’ll pack your things. I’m not putting you out on the street, one of your suppliers will take you right in for another fuck and we both know it.”
“She left in a tizzy, wasted, to go back to the dealer’s house (presumably to do more coke and continue with the coke-sex where she left off).”
Ha! Nailed it in one.
If drugs are involved, and coke is one of the worst because it directly contributes to sociopathic behaviour, don’t give them any time. Get them right out the door and bolt it. Use a full press if you have to. Turn on every recording device you’ve got and dial 91. Toss their things out a high window, don’t open anything at ground level to do it.
However bad the night gets, it would only get a lot worse if you let them stay even an hour.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:06 pm
As seen on dcurbanmum forum: “It’s been clinically proven that women are more likely to orgasm in long-term relationships”
Hamsters gon’ spin!
March 26th, 2015 at 3:10 pm
Sun – Yes!
Your past actions are the foundation of your present life.
I think Deti’s posts up thread should be standard reading material for all girls from 6 years old on.
Most females really cannot process forward thinking logic to see where their present actions will take them.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Ah, it isn’t her fault, it is the boring guys that lead the fairer sex to the assholes!
http://elitedaily.com/dating/date-a-guy-who-bores-me-to-tears/918320/
another bit of sunshine into the hypergamey nest.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:16 pm
The thing is the only people who care what some 36 year old hag has realized are the 45 – 55 year old men who will date them. And those men are not going to date a woman who has had fifty cocks in every hole and is now mentally broken by the relentless pump and dumps.
What this worthless promiscuous epiphany should be doing is teaching the next generation of woman how to not follow in her footsteps. But she is far more concerned with how she is going to find her BB.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps today is a good day to die.
Best alpha line I’ve ever heard.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:37 pm
I’ve been wanting to share this for a while since I saw it on TV, but I couldn’t find it until now. As soon as it was over I was just like, “Oh man, I HAVE to share this over at RM. Somebody there is gonna love this.”
Premise of the episode: Kathy gets bored of being a housewife and decides to pursue a glamorous career. Watch how the episode progresses and how it ends. I don’t want to spoil it ;)
Feminists would be all over this. I’d only have one thing to say to them: Danny Thomas’ trademark, where he’d look right at the person and lift his hand up like he was smacking them upside the head while yelling “EH!”
March 26th, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Woops, I linked the whole playlist. Sorry about that. The episode is:
THE DANNY THOMAS SHOW — Kathy’s Career ( 6th Season )
This should work:
March 26th, 2015 at 3:46 pm
“Kathy gets bored of being a housewife and decides to pursue a glamorous career.”
Note that this was first broadcast 7 years before the publication of The Feminine Mystique, during the Man’s Golden Age(tm) of the 50’s.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
“Kathy’s Career ( 6th Season ) ”
OK, four years. Still the 50’s.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:52 pm
@kfg
Your version explicates, my version demonstrates. Had I mentioned the easy-to-infer, it would have painted me “jealous”. Fact was, I wasn’t anything besides ready for bed (I had other plates on standby). She just took both barrels, I didn’t need to pour gasoline on the fire. Sure, I could’ve mounted the fiddy-cal and *chug-chug-chug-chug-chug* proceeded to reduce her to paste with a thorough brow-beating, but I didn’t hate the chick. Besides, escalation is the outcome you describe. If it was I who dialed 911, or her, it would’ve been me in jail, either way. No, I didn’t need to call her a whore, I just needed to call her “done”.
As it was, I had a hard time accepting my indifference, as did she.
V: “I know kung-fu?”
Her: “Shit. My shady coke-head style is no match for his lounging-fox technique. Welp, time for more coke, I guess.”
March 26th, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Lemuel – The HUGE elephant in the room! – ” our unreasonable assumption that true freedom can exist without responsibility “
March 26th, 2015 at 3:57 pm
@Vulpine,
What? You mean she didn’t try to pull the, “But my coke-habit-for-sex-with-dealer is in the past baby, that’s the old me, I want you to experience the *new* me. You’re special, but different than addiction-crazed-sex-for-hits.”
It tells you a lot of the world we live in where energy-intensive young boys are considered to have some kind of treatable “disease” (ADHD)… but women who literally live dual lives and expect men not to judge them are considered sane.
March 26th, 2015 at 3:59 pm
“If it was I who dialed 911 . . .”
I didn’t say dial 911.
March 26th, 2015 at 4:19 pm
@Jeremy
Oh, I got the “I can change/It’ll never happen again” bit, prior to that, no doubt. But, she had been caught red-handed for the Xth time, so that approach was dead-ended by the noose in her pile of rope. Get it? Dead-ended? Noose? Nyuk-nyuk, nyuk.
Read the “your love SUCKS” part and imagine being a that chick hearing that shit. Ladies? Care to imagine and comment on how that would feel?
I might just as well stabbed a pin in the head of a voodoo doll fashioned in her likeness: that’ll bang around in her head for a long, long time, like a curse.
She got to her coke dealer later that night…
*SNIIIIFFFFFFF*
…and then she hears “your love sucks” in her head.
She tells a lie to her next boyfriend…
…”your love sucks” echoes in her head, again.
Who am I trying to fool? She’s not going to remember shit besides the story she told everyone else. *shrug* I just painted myself black is all, and ninja’d off into the night to avoid being a vibrating wallet in the future with my newly proven knowledge.
March 26th, 2015 at 4:42 pm
@kfg
I fully comprehended your “dial 91″ meaning when I read it, and I completely understand that “drug-fueled frenzy” potential you warn of. Been there.
Escalation to that frenzied pitch was handily avoided by not inserting any personal attacks that would serve to fire-up the emotions. See how I put the brakes on her game when she started to deal the cards?
Without knowing the rapport in this case, your points are valid, don’t get me wrong. Avoid (negative) escalation is my counter-point.
March 26th, 2015 at 4:42 pm
@ kfg
I haven’t seen it, but I read that “Kathy’s Career” was an adaptation of an earlier episode from season 1 of the Danny Thomas Show.
That episode is up there too:
“Season 1, Episode 11, ‘Margaret’s Job’ (1953)
Anyway, I’ll spoil it:
The ending is so perfect. Talk about a slap in the face to the whole modern feminist trope of the “strong independent woman.”
The ‘strong independent woman’ at the end – the lady that Kathy wants to work for – talks about how her husband, who she was making a lot more money than, left her for another girl who thought having a career wasn’t important and wanted to raise a family.
She looks despondent and then says “They had their third child last month.” It continues:
Danny:
“Well, you didn’t exactly come up empty. You’re a very successful woman.”
Lady:
“Oh yes, yes. I have a thriving career and an assured future. Matter of fact I’ll probably turn into a female Bernard Baruch. Sitting on a park bench feeding the pigeons…watching somebody else’s kids.”
Then Kathy walks in, and she tells Kathy that she’s fired. No big conflict, no feminist “I’m strong as any man and can do a man’s job” BS….just a quiet ending where it shows a stark contrast between a successful spinster and a housewife who’s taken the fact that she has a good husband and two great kids for granted, thinking that the grass was going to be greener on the other side.
Compared with the “have it all” attitude of today.
Matter of fact, my own mother was going to college for fashion design. I’ve seen her work, and it’s amazing. She had a lot of great stuff. But when my sister came along, she quit school and stopped pursuing a career to stay home to raise her. Not too many years later I came rolling along, and that was that.
….
But that joke in the beginning of the episode, about how easy housework is these days because everything is electric (and think of how long ago that was):
Danny:
“Oh, you women today kill me. YOU’RE slaves? Man, you’ve got it made. It’s a push-button era you’re living in: automatic washers, automatic dryers, automatic ovens, vacuum cleaners — if you ask me, on Mother’s Day we should send flowers to the electric company.”
Made me laugh out loud.
Note the ‘old books’ makeup they have later where he comes in after work with flowers for her while she’s sleeping on the sofa, lays them down next to her and he gets on the piano and starts singing to her.
Even all the “Beta” stuff presented back in the day, going by the old set of books — it was balanced out by the generally accepted role of men as the head of the family, the head of the household.
Rollo’s pointed out how men today in TV are portrayed as bumbling idiots — the husband trope is the bumbling idiot, not the respected leader of the household. Who even if he made some mistakes, his family still respected him as the leader. You’ll see that in all the old shows — what a contrast.
I could talk and talk about it, but the episodes of these shows themselves are lessons in and of themselves. Interesting to watch things from an era long-gone and compare that with how things are today.
March 26th, 2015 at 5:12 pm
“I fully comprehended your “dial 91″ meaning when I read it . . .”
I suspected you may have, I was just making sure it was clear. And you got her out the door in a huff without having to use physical force, which is certainly the ideal.
“Interesting to watch things from an era long-gone and compare that with how things are today.”
Imagine how interesting watching how things are today for those of us who grew up watching Danny Thomas in first run.
March 26th, 2015 at 6:43 pm
Times long gone
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_C6J9gij5SQ
March 26th, 2015 at 6:55 pm
@kfg
I can only imagine
March 26th, 2015 at 7:21 pm
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/15/the_big_fk_buddy_lie_campus_hookups_and_the_dark_story_of_male_sexual_desire/
I think it goes under-appreciated that girls are not necessarily getting a lot out of being banged out by players for their entire 20s. Sure, they put a good face on it, especially while they’re in culturally-assisted denial. But subtle realities suggest they are merely going along with a horrible cultural script written by feminists. Feminism is so bad that it doesn’t even serve the interests of (most) women.
Note that in the earlier salon article linked, the woman acknowledged she was wasted during almost every sexual encounter—because she would not have been able to have them at all if sober. The woman’s “epiphany” was triggered by being sober during the sex act.
That is fucking stupid.
I don’t really believe that random sex is fulfilling in itself to these girls. They give it away because the price of pussy is low for alphas, and they think it’s as close as they can get to even a chance of commitment. But from the beginning that is what they really want.
Granted, there are ever-increasing numbers of careerist sociopaths being churned out by this culture, and that plays in.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:35 pm
The FI is changing that with googles right of removal in Europe.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:36 pm
@StringsofCoins
“The very idea that diligence and cultivating a good character would lead her to a happy life was beyond her. All she could see was all the alpha cock she would miss out on. All the fun. And all her friends were having so much “fun”. For whatever reason women do not seem to understand that hard work in the present leads to happiness in the future. They just want to live in paradise all the time. Let the slaves do the hard work.”
We often say that girls are the gatekeepers to sex. That is only sort of true. For much of human history, a girl’s parents have been the gatekeepers to sex. There was a pretty well-defined set of potential men, and the whole community played a role in figuring out who was appropriate for who, but especially the parents—and of course both genders had a role. If you think about it, this is a pretty smart way to ensure that the right kinds of behavior are rewarded. The parents were the ones insisting on a first-rate provider, ideally a man of status, wealth, and breeding. It’s a mistake to think this was ever high on a young girl’s mind. In fact you even get an echo of that binary in first-hand accounts—girls will separately discuss what turns them on, and what would be impressive to their parents or society in general. Weighing both, but whereas the latter would have been a sine qua non in generations past, it’s now some dim, easily ignored noise. (Now if your parents are a bunch of degenerate Boomer sexual revolutionaries…)
Basically, we have experimented with putting the power to decide the shape of the next generation of society in the hands of 20-year old girls. They are failing miserably, abjectly, to decide even in their own long-term self-interests, let alone that of society.
The wisdom of the old rules is coming back into focus.
March 26th, 2015 at 7:52 pm
@Jeremy: “watching people act like chemistry could ever be solved by “talking it out,”
Damn straight! Desire CAN NOT be negotiated.
March 26th, 2015 at 8:11 pm
@Rollo: “I had a guy on Twitter suggest I direct the next RM book towards women.
I told him I’d need to hire a good children’s book illustrator first.”
BOOM!
March 26th, 2015 at 10:14 pm
@Newgal : Men treat sex like a barometer of intimacy. Your problem is that you would be completely be able to understand this last sentence intellectually, but never feel it. So maybe i’m being a bit imprudent here, but when you are with your husband you are different to him then when you were with that asshole (assuming that your husband is a beta like most men are, nothing against him in particular). The saddest thing is, you wouldn’t realize it yourself unless you have a good capacity for self awareness (most women don’t). So the outrage here is your own husband’s when he comes to understand this difference, for the ways in which you think you are more special to him, doesn’t meet his biggest criteria for intimacy – spontaneous, permanent and uninhibited total sexual surrender. For him it’s saying that your true love for him is less, which is an insult to him, since he has given up so many other opportunities in life for you and believed that you’ll be “the one” these sacrifices will be worthy of.
Rollo and others prescribe plate spinning, for stoking precisely this desire dynamic in female partners. Normal equalist notions of intimacy lead to daily goodnight kisses and a weekly formality of sex. Plate spinning leads to fucking in dark alleys, when you guys are coming back from a late night movie. When was the last time you did that?
March 26th, 2015 at 10:24 pm
@Lucien :
You are mistaken and an FI meme. The answer to this is the guy in question and the woman’s age.(or what stage of life she is in). A doctor with a great car and a stable apartment who has got his shit together. A relationship material for a woman of 29. A pool boy (forgive the archetype) with six pack abs and a douche demeanor. Well such an asshole only gets pussy from a 22 year old chick, and they won’t even call back in some cases. So depends on the situation.
Women love to fuck men they love to fuck.
March 26th, 2015 at 10:26 pm
Plate spinning teaches men how to build attraction on a regular basis. Equalist, blue-pill-based marriage teaches men to do the laundry, dishes, and lawn-mowing and somehow they’ll be rewarded with sex…
Given that perspective, can any woman honestly say they’d rather marry the blue-pill guy who has no habit of building attraction?
March 26th, 2015 at 11:59 pm
It’s interesting how women understand the utilitarian nature of marriage and Pragma love when it comes to ‘settling’ and pursuing a monogamous relationship.
Problem is once Eros is released from its chains it becomes the standard bearer for all relationships. Even the law and churches now demands that Eros be upheld as the governing virtue for relationships.
Eros is a virtue now, Pragma isn’t enough anymore, according to the Cathedral men must be cajoled into constantly striving to incite Eros in their wives, anything else is abuse.
The problem is Eros is unsustainable, unpredictable, volatile, moving, fleeting, addictive, destructive, irresponsible, insatiable, temporary, can’t be negotiated and without foresight.
Blue pill provisioning monogamy culture was dominated by Pragma, red pill serial polygyny is dominated by Eros.
Once Eros becomes the standard for women, men want to partake in it too, rejecting second best really means rejecting Pragma, now men want Eros as well and Pragma won’t suffice anymore.
Those that can’t get it will go without (MGTOW), those that can will indulge and some will unwittingly accept Pragma thinking it is Eros.
Even Dalrock holds Eros as the standard today, if she isn’t head over heels for you don’t bother.
March 27th, 2015 at 12:19 am
Rollo’s link;
http://www.loveshack.org/forums/romantic/marriage-life-partnerships/519009-resentful-about-so-many-years-crappy-sex
Scroll pretty far down for AAA-Grade Female Solipsism from Elaine567
March 27th, 2015 at 12:24 am
Oh, man. There’s more than just Elaine. There are some real gems in there. It’s like all the RM principles written into the modern theater of internet forum dialogues.
March 27th, 2015 at 12:42 am
That was a great post to learn from.
Eros makes me think empty
Bruce Springsteen
DEVILS & DUST
Album version
I got my finger on the trigger
But I don’t know who to trust
When I look into your eyes
There’s just devils and dust
We’re a long, long way from home, Bobbie
Home’s a long, long way from us
I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust
I got God on my side
And I’m just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love
Fear’s a powerful thing, baby
It can turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God filled soul
And fill it with devils and dust
Well I dreamed of you last night
In a field of blood and stone
The blood began to dry
The smell began to rise
Well I dreamed of you last night, Bobbie
In a field of mud and bone
Your blood began to dry
And the smell began to rise
We’ve got God on our side
We’re just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love
Fear’s a powerful thing, baby
It’ll turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God filled soul
Fill it with devils and dust
It’ll take your God filled soul
Fill it with devils and dust
Now every woman and every man
They wanna take a righteous stand
Find the love that God wills
And the faith that He commands
I’ve got my finger on the trigger
And tonight faith just ain’t enough
When I look inside my heart
There’s just devils and dust
Well I’ve got God on my side
And I’m just trying to survive
What if what you do to survive
Kills the things you love
Fear’s a dangerous thing
It can turn your heart black you can trust
It’ll take your God filled soul
Fill it with devils and dust
Yeah it’ll take your God filled soul
Fill it with devils and dust
March 27th, 2015 at 12:57 am
@Rollo: “I explained this in The Myth of the Good Guy, the man who somehow magically embodies the best of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks isn’t believable to women, and in fact women don’t want those qualities in the same man at the same time – they want different men for different purposes.
As such they don’t expect (or really even want) to find Mr. Perfect (perfect is boring). Solution: sample as many Alpha cocks as possible and/or as needed for as long as she’s able to outcompete her sexual rivals for that attention, settle on Mr. Good Enough for long term security and parental investment, and rely on social conventions that absolve you of any duplicity by excusing those Alpha cocks as learning experiences that led her to Mr. Good Enough.
It’s pragmatic and brilliant when you think about it. It’s an exquisite solution to the problem of a dual mating strategy.”
Finally! Lightbulb moment. It’s like finally scratching an itch you couldn’t quite reach. This touches on something that hasn’t quite made sense to me for a while. Why should a woman want to optimize her hypergamy with a single man? There’s no reason for it from an instinctive perspective. The only reason why she should want to do that is because our current cultural environment enforces (or at least still encourages) monogamy.
Past that, it’s like trying to choose the right knife to buy. If you have the option of only choosing one knife for whatever reason, you may be able to find one that works pretty well for most things. But if given the choice, you would always choose to select multiple knives instead as you would then have the perfect knife for each task.
And yes, this is a brilliant strategy. To expand the metaphor, rent the big knife set for the big party, then return it. Then buy the one versatile knife that you need for day-to-day tasks, saying that that’s the one you wanted all along.
(Strange metaphor I know. I’ve been having to equip a new house, ha)
March 27th, 2015 at 1:08 am
As to women not wanting the AF/BB in the same man I always look at it this way- they are mutually exclusive. the things that make the AF is the danger, the risk and the excitement- what makes the BB is his safety, his regularity and his reassurances. You cannot be exciting and comfortable at the same time- they are opposites. To be in the middle, to embody both is to be a watered down version of either. You will have none of the benefits of either. As a BB you will suck because you are too unsafe and as a AF you will be undesirable because you won’t be truly dangerous and unpredictable.
Optimizing, or getting the best of both wolds, means having an extreme version of either. If you are BB then be fucking BB.. pay top dollar, say yes to her henpecking, silently suffer her sexual frigidity etc. If you are AF then be dangerous, unpredictable, uncaring, never let her know where she stands, keep her spinning and dripping, etc.
Thus is the female mind, and this is why they always say “just be yourself” so you will fall right in line, completely, in either camp.Women are serving up a red or blue pill, purple is not an option.
Incidentally, in line with this theory, I think that a womans sexual frigidity/withholding is not an accident, it is a necessity to assure herself that you are the beta she needs. Women are not just testing to see if you are truly alpha, but testing to make sure you are truly beta as well.
March 27th, 2015 at 1:45 am
@Hobbes
The problem with the whole thing comes in where no guy, even the most Blue Pill motherfucker, wants to be the guy she has no enthusiasm for. No male wants to be the guy getting shitty/no sex without modern divorce rape. With it? Holy fuck what a bad deal that no man should ever take.
March 27th, 2015 at 1:47 am
@lucien @Sun Wukong
From your comments:
Lucien
March 26th, 2015 at 12:07 pm
@Newgal
(lucien writes) I really don’t like the tone of the responses to your post, because I see your questions as being asked in good faith. I hope you don’t bail entirely on the “manosphere” despite that reaction. There’s a complex set of interlocking ideas here, and people who read this kind of stuff frequently probably start to see it as so intuitive that they forget what it looks like to a newcomer…
(Sun Wukong writes) I do agree with Lucien where he said earlier “I do think it’s unfair to girls that are told society permits them to do one thing, and then suddenly realize that society (well, men) demands something different.”
Would you call the writer using the handle ‘newgal’ a “newcomer”?
Online handle @newgal has used a lot of terms in those comments as terms that are common to that person.
These terms are familiar to us, but they are unfamiliar to most men and women on planet earth:
RP…
spin plates…
spinning plates…
plate…
alpha fucks…
next…
ltrs
March 27th, 2015 at 2:07 am
@lucien you have written:
I really don’t like the tone of the responses to your post, because I see your questions as being asked in good faith.
The writer using the handle @newgal has written:
Currently seeing someone who is into RP….
I’m caring, generous, I’ve never let a man pay my way or taken advantage of a mans finances and am extremely honest.
My only mistake it seems is agreeing to be casual with a man I want a relationship from. I better put a stop to that now, I guess.
Handle @newgal has “never” “let” (allowed) “a man”… and now blames the commenters for considering putting a stop to being ‘casual with a (RP) man she wants from.
Is ‘newgal’ blaming the commenters for the choice to consider checking out of the relationship.
Remember, the dots connected inside the book “The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine” by Rollo Tomassi … It opens eyes like never before, which is needed now more than ever with open hypergamy – odds are ‘newgal’s’ ‘RP man’ isn’t aware of ‘plan B guy’
Hope that “someone” is reading these comments. If not, he’s going to need emergency counseling from Rollo Tomassi like I did. Saved my life.
March 27th, 2015 at 2:17 am
Please define good faith.
March 27th, 2015 at 2:37 am
@Sun- of course. But that is where the FI comes in to sell men bullshit, equalist crap to bait the hook. As hypergamy becomes more open more men will see it for what it is. That’s why the conditioning starts early. No-one is going to tell the BB the truth, they give em the old Sandberg(?sp) treatment and tell them that they are now “exciting”, etc.
Men are adapting, as per the earlier comments about spinning plates- it’s a reaction to womens behavior, not the ideal for men.
March 27th, 2015 at 2:45 am
Hobbes – ” I think that a womans sexual frigidity/withholding is not an accident, it is a necessity to assure herself that you are the beta she needs.”
And it’s also necessary to reassure herself she is not trading sex for money, and not being oppressed, not being subject to patriarchy, and not being limited in choices.
The role of wife for the modern woman must be one of the more equal party. She must be the dominant half of the relationship to earn the merit badge. Her success in that is largely dependent on keeping the husband frustrated and resigned to a state of low expectations, but still with the faintest of hopes he can find happiness by pleasing her.
The worst part is she does this not just to test for beta, but to gain the approval of the herd, because that’s where her constructed identity as a woman actually comes from. And it’s the herd that hands out merit badges.
Now some will say this not a conscious con job. They will say she lies to herself as much as the poor shrub she’s leeching off of. Some will claim that this is a sign she is as much a victim of feminism as the man. The only reponse is so fucking what? To quote a famous feminist “at this point what difference it make anyway? ” No amount of explanation, or rationalization makes this palatable. Nor does it create any actual obligation on the part of men to forgive, understand, accept, and man up.