Author Archives: Rollo Tomassi

Hypergamy Synthesis

synthesis

After last week’s essay on the idealistic nature of the Quality Woman I had an interesting question arise:

Rollo,

I know you like to divorce humanistic and moralistic variables as much as possible from your blog and I understand why. I would like you to explain this point:

“There would be a contingent of moral absolutists who would declare that it’s men, by virtue of their great moral self-awareness and thus responsibility, who need to enforce controls over the socially destructive nature of hypergamy. Ironically this moral impetus is yet one more control itself to ensure hypergamy works to the benefit of those who subscribe to their moral absolutism.”

I understand you say that hypergamy doesn’t care about moral imperatives but how would the attempt of men to enforce controls over it (which I’m not sure is entirely possible) backfire on those men?

As is my standing rule, I strive for a separation of moralism and rationality on this blog, up to the point where the topic crosses over into a better rational understanding of a particular dynamic by addressing the moral element of it – this is one such an occasion.

What I’m saying is that, in the context of hypergamy, moral absolutism, religiosity, secular appeals to ‘higher self’ ideals,..hell, even white knightery, are all founded in a desire to control hypergamy to better fit their subscriber’s perceived strengths and weaknesses in coping with hypergamy.

I’ve written in several blog posts about how the feminine imperative would ideally strive for a set of controlled environmental conditions that favor’s women’s capacity to optimally satisfy their hypergamic natures (i.e. feminism, feminine-bastardized chivalry, etc). As impossible as this is in a long term sense, the feminine will exhaustively construct social dynamics it thinks change the ‘rules’ to favor hypergamy – lowering the basket to better play the game, etc.

Men given to moral absolute ideals, like blue pill men still plugged in, do something similar in their own mindset, and just like the feminine imperative, find themselves equally disappointed when the Rules don’t change to meet their capacity to play the game. They’ll disqualify women from their definition of ‘quality’ in the same fashion women will disqualify men as ‘misogynists’ when either refuse, deliberately or indifferently, to comply with what their ideal conditions predispose their beliefs for.

Hypergamy isn’t going to change, so if a moralist or a feminist wants to minimize or maximize hypergamy to their benefit, social and psychological schemas need to develop around what serves either the best. This is exactly why white knight beta chumps seek to define what the essence of Alpha should be in terms that best describes themselves. They seek to control hypergamy by redefining hypergamy’s ideal to fit their own description – likewise fem-centrism will seek to redefine masculinity to better fit a hypergamous ideal (Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks in the same, or in two distinct, definitions of a man).

Conditionally necessitous women will seek to redefine for men what men ‘should’ want in an ideal partner by defining female desirability as it pertains to themselves. Thus we get fat acceptance and a refocusing of women’s intrinsic qualities as what men should prefer rather than the male-hypergamic impulse of men to be aroused by women’s physical appeal.

Control and Synthesis

Now, all of that isn’t an indictment of multiple millennias of human social progress, but rather it’s to reveal the base motivator of that progress.

One of the main issues I see for both genders coming to terms with the reality of Hypergamy is this want for applying humanistic / moral variables into the resolution of hypergamic problems.

In other words, hypergamy doesn’t care about your moral imperatives – it exists with equal efficiency both within and without a moral context.

Hypergamy has been a very uncomfortable truth of human existence since long before we had a formal name for the dynamic. Every inter-gender social convention in human history has been an attempt to either marginalize its influence, or in the case of women, misdirect men from the truth of how their hypergamy, directly or indirectly, compels their most intimate decisions. So pervasive is hypergamy that it had to be evolutionarily sublimated into our subconscious/preconscious minds. The conceptual awareness of hypergamy was so disturbing to the human condition that, in our evolved past, humanity literally selected-for people with the ability to psychologically repress the awareness of it. Thus you get dynamics like the War Brides phenomenon, and while moralistically it’s pretty fucked up, both the men and women who benefit from it simply shrug their shoulders and say everything from “it is what it is” to “it all worked out for God’s glory.”

Our concepts of romance, tenets of religion, even our innate understanding of gender differences, are all manifestations that reflect the human want to anthropomorphize and exercise control over hypergamy. We want to believe our ‘higher’ selves can rise above the physical demands of hypergamy only to have those moral idealizations reflect hypergamy within that idealized context.


Quality Women

quality_women

Reader Coy expressed a need for illumination on the myth of the Quality woman:

Rollo,
I would really appreciate your thoughts on “the quality woman”. You have touched on the phenomena in many of your previous posts but i really feel my self subconsciously slipping into that binary circle jerk of madonna/whore . A dedicated post would be nice.

I briefly touched on this in AFC Social Conventions:

The Myth of the “Quality” Woman

It seems like all I read about on SoSuave these days is a never ending quest for a “Quality Woman.” There’s threads asking for clear definitions of what constitutes a “Quality” woman and others that conveniently set women up into 2 camps - Quality women and Hors, as if there were no middle ground. How easy it becomes to qualify a woman based on her indiscrretions (as heinous as they’re perceived to be) for either of these catagories. This is binary thinking at its best – on or off, black or white, Quality woman or Hor.

I think the term ‘Quality’ woman is a misnomer. Guys tend to apply this term at their leisure not so much to define what they’d like in a woman (which is actually an idealization), but rather to exclude women with whom they’d really had no chance with in the first place as an ego-preservation method, or mistakenly applied too much effort and too much focus to only to be rebuffed. This isn’t to say that there aren’t women who will behvae maliciously or indiscriminately, nor am I implying that they ought to be excused out of hand for such. What I am saying is that it’s very AFC to hold women up to preconceived idealizations and conveniently discount them as being less than “Quality” when you’re unable to predict, much less control their behaviors.

The dangers inherent in this convention is that the AFC (or the DJ subscribing to the convention) then limits himself to only what he perceives as a Quality woman, based on a sour-grapes conditioning. Ergo, they’ll end up with a “Quality” woman by default because she’s the only candidate who would accept him for her intimacy. It becomes a self-fulfiling prophecy by process of elmination. Taken to its logical conclusion, they shoot the arrow, paint the target around it and call it a bullseye, and after which they’ll feel good for having held to a (misguided) conviction.

So why is this a social convention then? Because it is socially unassailable. Since this convention is rooted to a binary premise, no one would likely challenge it. It would be foolish for me to say “Yes Mr. DJ I think you ought to avoid what you think of as Quality women.” Not only this, but we all get a certain satisfaction from the affirmation that comes from other men confirming our own assessment of what catagory a woman should fit into. Thus it becomes socially reinforced.

Be careful of making a Quality woman your substitute for a ONEitis idealization.

Back when he had a terrestrial radio show Tom Leykis did a topic about this: He had everyday women call in and tell their stories of how they used to be sexually (i.e. slutty) and how they are now. He came up with this after driving past a grade school on his way to the studio and seeing all of the women there waiting for their kids to come out and wondered about what their lives used to be like in their childless 20s. This was a wildly popular topic and the confessions just poured in like all of these women had been waiting for years to come clean anonymously about the sexual past that their husbands would never dream they were capable of. Each of these women sounded proud of themselves, almost nostalgic, as if they were some kind of past accomplishments.

This is why I laugh at the concept of the Quality woman. Don’t misinterpret that as a “women = shit” binary opinion. I mean it in the sense that most guy’s concept of a quality woman is an unrealistic idealization. There’s not a guy in the world who committed to monogamy with a woman who didn’t think she was ‘quality’ when he was with her. Even if she was a clinical neurotic before he hooked up with her, she’s still got “other redeeming qualities” that make her worth the effort. It’s only afterwards when the world he built up around her idealization comes crashing down in flames that she “really wasn’t a Quality Woman.”

Force Fit

The Quality Woman is defined by how well she fits a man’s conditioned ideal. Good Luck Chuck lamented in last week’s Hyenas that after a certain age all women are Alpha Widows, or, progressively lose the idealization of embodying the Quality Woman. While I understand the frustration, there’s an eerily similar tone that men use when they bemoan the lack of Quality Women in the world that echoes women’s when they ask “what happened to all the real men?” The only difference being that in girl-world a woman is entitled to a real man irrespective of her own quality, while a man is less of a Man for his complaints of her lacking those qualities.

I don’t envy the situation monogamy minded men in this era find themselves in. As we become a more and more connected society the indiscretions of a woman’s past will become increasingly more difficult to hide, much less temper. Whereas before, unless a woman had worked in porn, documenting her sexual and/or intimate past may have been an effort best reserved for private investigators. Now it’s as easy as reading her social media footprint archived for all to read.

This is tough on a guy sold on idealistic notions that his virgin bride is awaiting him somewhere in the world. That may be a bit binary for all but the most white knight of guys, but by order of degree, and with a measured prudence, I think it’s important for men to disabuse themselves of finding the virgin slut, who’ll only be his virgin slut.

And while I would never advocate a guy to hurry up and marry those sluts, the problem with this idealization is that men want to force fit the woman who most closely resembles his Quality Woman into that fantasy role. It becomes a psychological feedback loop – connect with a “Quality Woman”, discover her flaws, personal conditions and the decisions she made that resulted in them, then (after attempts at rationalizing them himself) disqualify her from the Quality Woman designation. The cycle comes full circle when her disqualification as a Quality Woman sets the environment for finding his next ‘jewel in the rough’.

The bad news and the good news of this is that, as connectivity and communication among men increases, so too do they realize that the Quality Woman is an impossibility even for the most gracious of women. Thanks to the rise of the manosphere we have a global consortium of men exchanging their individual experiences with women to compare and contrast with their own. The good part is it’s easy to generate a list of red flags to watch out for or read about the consequences men have suffered as a result of their blue pill existences. The bad part is that with that greater understanding comes the realization that even the best of women are still subject to hypergamy, the feminine imperative and the fem-centric environment they find themselves in.

A little bit of knowledge is sometimes dangerous – after a lot of this realization and the discernement that comes from it men are likely to have a very long list of prerequisites and red flags develop. I’m not saying men should surrender to the inevitability of marrying some raging former slut, but I am saying that an important part of unplugging oneself from the Matrix is letting go of the idealization of the Quality Woman. There are a lot of caring and nurturing former sluts, and there are pristine and chaste women only lacking the proper motivation to move them in a direction no one would ever expect of them.

 


Hyenas

In my time spent in the manosphere I’ve been asked on more than one occasion what I thought about the concept of the Alpha Female. For a time I was resistant to the idea, not because I didn’t allow for the possibility that certain women were predisposed to being Type A personalities and given to the same desire for power and control that men predominantly have, but rather due to the way that Alpha Female came to develop that personality.

As the social impulse to feminize men took root, so too was the counterbalance of masculinizing women instituted. As I’ve stated in earlier post, the concept of power, real power, isn’t invested in controlling the action of others, but in how much control we can exercise in the course of, and over our own, live’s. Freud’s concept of penis envy not withstanding, up until the time of the sexual revolution it’s been men who’ve seemingly had the most control over the courses their lives will take. This of course is a classic fiction for the majority of men, but this is the perception even the most unassuming women have had with men – even the poorest of men have more power to decide what direction their lives will take than women.

In a natural state, women’s biological, emotional, provisioning and protection needs have always been sustained by men. Women evolved to be the more necessitous sex. This isn’t to say women were patently helpless, didn’t provide nurturing or couldn’t adapt to new environmental challenges, but it is to say their individual survivability, if not entirely dependent upon men, was greatly enhanced by cooperating sexually and socially with men. Due to this male-centric necessity women’s predisposition for a want of a survival-level security evolved – and so too did the subliminal anxiety to ensure themselves against survival insecurity.

As social progress advanced (and occasionally retreated) so too did the influence of the Feminine Imperative over men. I would argue that the Feminine Imperative, as a socio-sexual construct, was evolved from a desire not so much to control men, but as a means to relieve the anxiety of women’s earliest insecurities. This struggle for power necessitated the development of the Feminine Imperative, but only in the respect that it afforded women real power – a greater control over the course that their own lives would take.

Ensuring an enduring dominance of genetic material being passed on with the best male stock (i.e. Hypergamy) was of equal importance to ensuring the survivability of her offspring. This is nothing new to the manosphere, it’s simply the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic, but reduced to its evolutionary beginnings. As women were (and still are) afforded greater control over their own lives (true power) the application of this power is spent in easing women’s dependency upon men. A woman’s desire for power is rooted in easing the anxieties and insecurities her feral and tribal ancestors hard-coded into her contemporary psyche.

For every female CEO exercising her influence over today’s (male created) corporations, for every book about the End of Men, for every speech about Feminist Triumphalism, it’s important for men to understand that all of these overt declarations of power stem from women’s primal insecurity about their own survivability without the aid of attracting and sustaining an enduring relationship with a man.

Alpha Females

I drew this up to put into context the misnomer that is the Alpha Female. I find it ironic, but not unexpected, that a fem-centric society will adamantly resist the idea of Men being Alpha, yet enthusiastically embrace labeling strong independent women® as Alpha Females. Feminists and Mangina intellectuals alike will spend endless hours elaborating over how human males can’t possibly be compared with Alpha lions or wolves in the wilderness, and that it’s basement dwelling keyboard theorists who promote the idea; yet will giddily endorse women like Sheryl Sandberg as being Alpha Females.

At the risk of reopening the “what is Alpha?” can of worms, women cannot be Alpha in the same sense that Men are considered Alpha. The operative point being that Alpha in the male sense is a derivative of the male biology. By virtue of testosterone, male animals have (by order of degree) an inborn disposition towards an Alpha behavior set. On the most rudimentary scale, Alpha behaviors and physical traits are defined by their utility to that male and the breeding motivations they inspire in females.

Before I get run up the flagpole for asserting that testosterone is a key element for determining an Alpha status, allow me to direct your attention to today’s linked video. There is a species of mammal wherein the female of the species possesses more testosterone than the male, and consequently the role of sexual agressor and pack leading Alpha status is conferred to her.

They’re called Hyenas.

Watch the video (it’s short) and contrast the female hyena’s behaviors and,..physical characteristics with the fem-centric popularized notion of an Alpha Female.

To be sure, there are Alpha traits and behavioral learnings most Beta men can develop and internalize. I’m still a firm believer that to a greater degree, Alpha status for men can become who a Man is. In fact behavioral Alpha dominance is (was) passed on from one dominant male to his offspring, or close relation. So it does stand to reason that women too can learn these dominant behavior sets. The rapid masculinization of contemporary women is proof of this, and women may also internalize this dominance schema to become who they are; but does this make them Alpha?

Obviously women are not hyenas, but the physical dimorphism of hyena sexuality is an interesting illustration for the masculinization of females in humans. Primarily it changes the social dynamic of the group. Women can do what our female hyena does in this video through anabolic steroid use and a lot of heavy lifting, and with similar physical results, but does this alter a female security desire evolved for thousands of years? That answer might be yes, but for a woman to be Alpha she must physically and mentally transform into as close an approximation of a man as societal conditioning and physical mutation will allow.

This being the case, is she really female anymore?


Generation Alpha Widow

barbie

My real-life friend and internet shadow, Good Luck Chuck, once expressed this idea to me in a comment (SS forum?) thread:

“Rollo, once a guy gets to be 40 ALL women are Alpha Widows. There’s simply no avoiding it. By age 30, unless there’s something psychologically wrong with her, virtually every woman a guy might want to date has some kind of baggage – kids, a former bad boy(s) she can’t forget, or some other residual effect that weighs down on her as a result of basically following the socio-sexual “you go grrrrl” script the majority of women do today.”

As part of the greater whole that has become the manosphere, and courtesy of the age of technology, today we have the unique benefit fo being able to go back in time and observe the meta-game being played by the Feminine Imperative. I did something similar in Choreplay; comparing and contrasting the five year reinvention of a feminine-operative social convention by Diane Mapes. However, you can do so on a larger social scale as well, and chart the social trends that typify the ‘fem-think’ of a particular decade or even longer.

In the early 2000′s the feminine order of the day was “live while the living’s good.” The HBO series that defined that era was Sex and the City. The fantasy of masculine control for women could be realized and along with that the world was a woman’s sexual oyster. Blatant demands of sexual satisfaction mixed with the frustration of perfecting an optimized hypergamy with a selection of prospective men made for not only an award winning series, but was also responsible for the social saturation of a new feminine mindset culturally.

SatC wasn’t necessarily reflective of what was realistically going on from a cultural meta-perspective, but its social influence and associative feelings for women was undeniable. As with most cultural influences for women, the impression is all that mattered – personal conditions and reality be damned women, wanted to live vicariously through SatC.

That Was Then

Now in its second season, HBO has a new cultural benchmark for women in Girls. In 2012-13 the sexual market landscape is a new frontier compared with the SatC days. Rather than sell the fantasy of wanton sexual largess and indulgence that SatC did, the feminine order of the day is bemoaning the lack of marriageable men possessing the elusive balance of Beta with a side of Alpha. Make no mistake, the sex is still the primary associative for Girls’ predominantly female viewership, but now the message is less about power and more about the powerlessness women of this decade are frustrated with. In both shows, the male protagonists are impotent caricatures of modern men, and in both shows the women’s primary plot conflicts are rooted in these men’s inability to live up to feminine expectations and in such a way that is accommodating of the conditions their life’s choices has determined for them.

In SatC the frustration was met with blunt force. The solution was to overpower men into entitled submission with spunky feminine über confidence and enrapture the only men so deserving of them – men with equal to, or preferably greater than, social status than themselves. In Girls the dynamic is an equally intense powerlessness; the mechanic of plot conflict relying on its female viewership’s empathy and sympathies. The Girls generation wallows in the frustration of men’s imperfect suitability for their needs. Not only is the indignation aspect of Girls supremely satisfying for women, but the emotional associations women make with this show tell a greater story of the current gender landscape.

Girls appeals to the generation of Alpha Widows that Sex and the City was itself an accomplice in creating. It’s easy to relate with Chuck’s evaluation of modern women being a seething mass of Alpha Widows in this light, all pining for the guy(s) who, at least perceptually brought them as close in their real lives to realizing the dream of a perfected hypergamy. Only now do they realize the consequences of extending the search for the hypergamous dreamquest, but the blame for those consequences doesn’t lie in their choices or even their inability to recognize the mechanics of their own hypergamy. No, the blame goes to parents, the blame goes to cultural forces they are only now conveniently aware of, and of course the blame goes to all the men who would not or could not help them save themselves from themselves – the same men who adapted to the sexual market their decisions created.

The zeit geist that the feminine imperative would have women believe today is that the source of their unhappiness comes from being sold on the idea of an acculturated priority of putting professional life above personal life. As tempting as it is to agree with this, the problem is that the same empowering professional aspirations that women may or may not have been encouraged to internalize are inseparable from the personal (romantic) decisions they made for themselves. Women’s professional beliefs influences their personal beliefs and vice versa. So now, once again, the feminine imperative reinvents the messaging, but the same culprit of women’s unhaaaapiness is still the same – the men who evolved contingencies to cope with the sexual market place women developed.

Now the feminine imperative’s meme is about men’s unwillingness to adjust to women’s wanting a satisfying relationship prior to their turning 25 years old. Asshole Alphas have polluted the sexual market. Their insistence (not women’s predilections) has made the nefarious hook up culture what it is today and the poor, disenfranchised Girls of generation Alpha Widow are bearing the brunt of Alpha predations. What’s old is new, and it’s the men created by the SatC generation who wont Man Up, do the right thing and girlfriend-up a mid 20′s girl.


Consumer Confidence

url-1

After having worked in the liquor industry for over 8 years I can tell you that the most difficult demographic to appeal to is men. You might think that’s hard to believe but by comparison men are much more difficult to engage than women when it comes to introducing a new spirits brand. Men tend to lock in with a particular brand of liquor or beer (usually what’s cheap) and resist anything new, while women are much more experimentative with choice of intoxicants.

When introducing a spirit such as a bourbon or whiskey, one that is traditionally a male taste, the field is incredibly broad. There are literally thousands of craft brands all vying for the same male demographic, however, only a dozen of these brands are ever commercially successful. Not so with flavored vodkas or rums, which appeal to the much wider female drinking demo. The common mistake is to think men wont drink “froo froo” drinks with umbrellas in them for fear of seeming unmanly. This is the feminized marketing perspective; in actuality the female drinking demographic has much more depth and much more purchasing influence.

That may seem odd considering the aggressiveness with which the better known alcohol brands market to a male, drinking age demographic, but that aggressiveness is necessary to maintain brand awareness with men due to one simple fact: women are the primary consumers in westernized societies.

Alcohol is an easy illustration, not just because I’m intimately involved in the industry, but because it’s one of the few markets that actively tries to engage a male demographic. Most advertising since the rise of social feminization has simply written off male consumer involvement. Men don’t buy shit, women do. Even uniquely male necessities are purchased more often by women (wives  or LTR women) than men today, so rather than make attempts at inroads to male brand loyalty advertising and marketing directs its effort to the demographic that is doing the actual purchasing – women.

Feminist love to paint this patronization as some triumph of women becoming more economically equatable with men. The fem-logic being that women have more purchasing influence because they have more money from being more economically successful (only to bemoan the tired 77¢ on the male dollar trope 10 minutes later). Some of that may be true, but the greater influence is men’s general apathy about who’s making purchases in their names.

Men’s innate rationality is a tough obstacle for most marketers. The fact that most advertising is controlled by a female influence further exacerbates the difficulty of reaching men’s purchasing influence. And really, why bother? It’s much easier to induce women’s purchasing decisions with appeals to their predominantly emotional natures. Women buy from feeling good about buying something, while men buy from pragmatism – even when that pragmatism may only benefit themselves.

Means of Production

I was recently reading a forum thread I got a link back from and the topic was the timeless classic, “what make a man a man?” The predictable responses were all present: Confidence, Responsibility, Integrity, and all of the other subjectively definable esoteric attributes you’d expect. I thought about this question in terms of the difference in consumer influence of both men and women. I’m not an economist, but I am an ideas guy, and it occurred to me that the nuts and bolts of being a man is to produce more than you consume.

To maintain a wife, children, even a dog, a man must produce more than his consumption. Once you’ve lost that capacity (or never developed it) you are less of a man – you are a burden. You must be provided either by charity or guile, but you’re not producing.

On a limbic level, women’s hypergamy filters for this. You see, while women have the societal option to provide for themselves, there is no onus on her to produce anything more than she herself consumes. For all the fem-centric male professions of how rewarding being a stay-at-home Dad is, what eats away at them is the hindbrain awareness that he is not producing more than he consumes. This is the same awareness etching into a woman’s psyche when she’s the one doing the provisioning.

Every complaint about men not Manning Up, every article bemoaning the End of Men or the dearth of datable / marriageable men of “equatable” socio-economic, educational levels as the women seeking them, finds the root of its discontent in the very simple formula that men must produce more than they consume. Women’s displeasure isn’t that a man might be less intellectual than they are so much as he can provide for himself, and her, and a child, and a dog, and a relative, etc.


Half Plus Seven

Half+7

Last week Dalrock plumbed the dangerous waters of the Eat, Pray, Love feminine social convention for the geriatric crowd in Grannies Gone Wild! It’s an entertaining piece to be sure. If you believe(ed) in the Soul Mate Myth as some article of your personal faith or your internalized  blue pill conditioning, you’re in for a cold bucket of reality when you read the dating escapades of these Golden Girls once their lifetime soulmates husbands die and the Buffers of online dating and social networking are introduced to them by women of the Pepsi generation.

You see gentlemen, hypergamy trumps the soulmate myth, even for the 68 year old sweetheart you met in high school all those years ago. Sort of puts the Myth of the Lonely Old Man into perspective too.

Anyone with some red pill awareness isn’t shocked by this. The Feminine Imperative and the rigors of hypergamy are always a reality men will have to deal with, and even old age wont diminish the drive for optimization. What does change however is the means by which the Feminine Imperative will fluidly adapt the social conventions it embeds into our  social awareness in order to perpetuate itself. Collectively convincing 70+ year old widows and divorcées that ‘they still got it’ is just a new inroad for an old feminine social convention meant to reach the elderly demographic. It’s almost a future reassurance for the 40+ demographic unable or unwilling to live out the ‘Stella Got Her Groove Back’ script. The message is “Don’t worry, if you can’t get your groove back re-optimize hypergamy at 40, 70 looks pretty good too.

With the exception of ‘mature’ porn (not to be confused with MILF porn), the idea of women aged well past their post-Wall expiration date “exploring their options” might seem dubious,..until you read about the rise in sexually transmitted diseases amongst seniors.

Social Convention Fluidity

I’ve written more than a few articles outlining Feminine Social Conventions, but Dalrock’s piece highlighted the adaptability with which the Feminine Imperative will change those conventions to suit its specific purpose. There are many examples of this, but in this particular instance what we’re seeing here is a reinvention of a similarly useful feminine social convention – that is the Half Plus Seven trope made popular by teenage girls and aging spinsters concerned with their competitive edge in the SMP with the younger women men naturally find more sexually arousing. The Urban Dictionary spells this convention out for us:

“Half, plus seven” is the age-old dating rule for dudes. It justifies the dating of younger women, within reason. The formula begins with each dude’s age (for example, 22). That age is halved (22/2 =11), and 7 is tacked on to the divided result. Therefore, a 22 year old male may legitimately date an 18 year old female, a 25 male may date a female of 19.5, and a 30 male may date a female of 22. While there is no technical ceiling on this social anthropological formula, there is a point at which common sense takes over, and it just becomes disgusting. For instance, this formula should not be used to justify a 60 year old man dating a 37 year old female.
Half plus seven examples:

Guy’s age: 20. Formula: (20/2)+7 = Minimum acceptable age of female: 17.

Guy’s age: 25. Formula: (25/2)+7 = Minimum acceptable age of female: 19.5

As with the most useful of feminine social conventions, the feminine imperative assimilates the ‘insensitive brinksmanship’ of men’s sexual strategies and repurposes them to serve feminine sexual strategies. You see while a man is 25 and his ½+7 acceptability is 19.5 this ratio adjust radically when he’s 40 and his ½+7 acceptability is 27. Forty year old never-married or divorced spinsters looking for a second shot at monogamy with their socio-economic rivals equals shriek in unison at the ½+7 rule they embraced when they were in their mid to late 20′s. Not so coincidentally this age ratio aligns almost perfectly with the optimization of male monogamy on the SMP evaluation scale.

I’ve locked horns with Aunt Giggles about the Half +7 theory on a few occasions and generally the debate ends when she agrees to the Roissy maxim that the most solid LTRs are the result of the Man being 1-2 points higher than the woman’s SMV rating, or perceptually so to her.

As an aside, it’s important to remember the Cardinal Rule of Relationships here:

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

When a woman perceives (legitimately or not) that your SMV is above her own, the power dynamic in the relationship is one of secure attachment. However, boost that SMV beyond 3 or 4 points and the relationship becomes one based on insecurities and fear of loss (for men and women). While dread is an important underlying element in maintaining a healthy relationship, push it too far and too overtly and you lean over into unhealthy insecurity.

As I addressed in The Mature Man, look at this from the half +7 rule, the older a man the greater the impression that he should have matured into a higher SMV than the younger woman, and thereby is perceptually of 1-2 points above her own by virtue of his experience and hopefully affluence. Principles like Amused Mastery are at their most effective when a woman perceives a man’s SMV is higher than her own.

That said, if there is any merit to Half +7 it’s more about SMV imbalance and the Cardinal Rule of Relationships than any feminine social doctrine. So when you look at my SMV graph you can also see the age differential between the points where men’s SMV would generally be 1-2 points above a woman’s (35+) and where a woman’s SMV begins to decline (27+).

Repurposing The Convention

When the age ratios of the ½+7 formula are strategically favorable to the feminine sexual strategy, the response by the feminine is one of enthusiastic embracement. Once that ratio progresses to the point it becomes a sexually strategic liability, or even the source of anxiety, the response is one of scorn and shame for men. In light of this you might think the feminine response would be complete abandonment of the ½+7 canard, but as we see, reinventing the formula from a fem-centric perspective becomes not only a source false empowerment (i.e. the Cougar fallacy), but also the motivation for the Eat, Pray, Love schema Dalrock so ably details in his writing. Thus we have 68 year old women ‘amazed’ by their sunset years desirability, inflated courtesy of technology age buffers, and a built in social convention ready to help them abstract and rationalize away any vestige of guilt they may feel about indulging themselves with (comparatively) younger men.

Hypergamy doesn’t care what age a woman is.

I should add here that any social convention that is a sexually strategic benefit for a woman, which later becomes a strategic liability, will be retrofitted to a man’s shame and repurposed to her strategic benefit under her new circumstances. Another illustration of this is the shifting acceptability of inter-gender friendships with women. Prior to locking down a suitably optimal hypergamous monogamy with a man, women will enthusiastically embrace the idea of men and women being platonic ‘friends’. Once she’s monogamous this acceptability shifts to unacceptability in favor of a cautious, measured jealousy, and again reverts back to acceptability while unengaged with a monogamous prospect. Women having male orbiters, women involved in multiple ‘friendships’ with men, is sexually advantageous to her hypergamous assessment of prospective men – however once that assessment is settled upon, inter-gender friendships (for her man) becomes a strategic liability for her.


You Can’t Handle Me

marylin

 

Solomon had a great comment on Dalrocks’ most recent post about women, alcohol and blamelessness:

I know girls love the MM quote “If you can’t handle me at my worst, then you don’t deserve me at my best” and I don’t know what MM’s “worst” was, but…

The girls that say that quote today haven’t taken into account this perspective:

“Your worst sucks, is unacceptable, and you are hereby rejected and disqualified for being an unwise, undisciplined, errant fool. Your ‘best’ is unimpressive and disappointing as well.”

Most girls cannot compute the fact that they are intolerable and lack even the basic elements of character or wisdom- probably because their trip on the carousel seems to contradict or deny the natural consequence- rejection. Too dumb to know that the carousel is rejection too.

Women- your pussy-pass is played out. If you banked on that in life, you have earned your suffering well. Your sass and ill behavior is unbecoming, and will earn you the same desolation.

Had to get that off my chest. Carry on.

I see this quote bandied around on FaceBook by women seeking affirmation and some girl-world truism they can chant to themselves, all while their girlfriends and fe-male symps virtually nod in assent.

One of the indicators of a fem-centric society is the empowerment of uniquely female failings and the fluid reengineering of net negatives into net positives. The message here is that a woman’s best outweighs her worst. For guys, a woman’s best – the best we’d like to enjoy – generally has to do with how hot she is and the exclusive sexual access and desire she has for us. However there is an ubiquitous price to be paid in order to enjoy a woman’s best, and sometimes her worst isn’t worth her best.

Thanks Marylyn.


The Crying Game

SANYO DIGITAL CAMERA

Not Carrie Bradshaw (?) made an observation in last week’s post I wanted to riff on a bit:

…..A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

Only to an extent. A crying women will elicit support and sympathy from men only if she is young and beautiful. Otherwise she is just an irritation that needs to be shut up,

A crying woman will elicit support and sympathy from women only if she belongs to the same “tribe” as the woman offering support and sympathy. Will a crying old black woman get any sympathy from a young white chick ? Not so much.

Men are not biologically pre-disposed to crying (not as much as women anyway) so when they do, no one really knows how to respond. Particularly if it is in front of strangers and the reason for his tears is not clear at all. Admittedly this is a very very rare occurance – usually when a man has mental issues or is having a mental breakdown.

Normally men cry in front of family, very close friends, people whom they trust implicitly or in front of medical emergency personnel so I don’t think he will be shunned in those circumstances, especially if it involves death or loss of something very very important to him.

Since 2010 I can think of only three instances when I broke down and cried – my father’s death, my wife’s younger brother dying suddenly at 39 and the loss of one of my best dogs. It’s not because I’m some unfeeling badass that nothing affects, but I think it’s more about what moves me, or any guy, beyond that threshold. I’m pretty good at holding back that lump in my throat from crossing the line.

Since its inception, part of the of the package feminization sold men about “getting in touch with their feminine sides®” included the encouragement of boys learning to be in touch with their emotions and cry more often. It was part of their ‘sensitivity training’, and they were acculturated to believe that women would appreciate them more for their honest tears. You’d think guys who’d learn to cry on demand would have it made, right?

Vestiges Revisited

NCB’s comment was in response to Hero’s observation from that same thread:

A conclusion I’ve come to in the past couple years is: a woman crying gets support while a man crying gets shunned.

A woman crying is still biologically valuable. She still has a vagina and a uterus. She could still successfully carry and care for a child. Thus she is embraced and supported by the tribe.

A man crying is a liability. His crying will alert the predatory animals and invading gangs to his position. His distress is actually a problem for the tribe.

It is a blatant lie that feminism is about creating equality. We have been misled into thinking that men should emote and talk about their feelings. Very few people in a man’s life will give a shit when he is going through a rough time in his life.

Women are afforded vast support and provisions that men will never know.

One of the most annoying sounds for me, and if the studies are accurate all human beings in general, is the sound of a crying infant. It was a species survival trait that this sound psychologically evolved to prompt such an irritated response in humans. No matter who’s child was doing the crying, you damn well couldn’t ignore the distress coming from the baby.

It’s easy to make the association of how this ‘check-the-baby’ dynamic is a vestige of what evolved to make our species so successful; if it didn’t annoy us, more distressed babies wouldn’t have made it to semi-adulthood. However once we pass a certain stage of development, overt emotional displays (the most obvious being crying) diverge drastically for us by gender. As Hero observes, graphic displays of emotionalism were a sign of weakness to protohuman tribal societies. Women generally took care of crying infants and the association of infantile helplessness, in addition to being a general annoyance,  would necessarily be a liability to the group’s survival integrity. From a male-only perspective we can see the implications of this, but expand that to the social cohesion of the tribal unit and you can see that overt displays of emotionalism from men would also be associated as signs of implicit weakness for tribal women. Thus a rational control of emotion became hardwired into men’s psyches.

So you see when the feminine imperative makes attempts to feminize men, as with all of feminization’s efforts, it struggles against thousands of years of species-valuable, in-bred psychology.

She Cries

The parallel to this dynamic is women’s crying. Have a listen to the interplay of emotionalism in the woman’s voice in this radio bit and article.

White Knights will come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible in spite of the circumstance responding viscerally to a woman weeping. How did you feel when you heard the girl cry?

Once again, as Hero points out, the sound of a woman crying elicits the innate protector response for men, but as NCB examines, only insofar as that woman presents a viable reproductive prospect. Since this woman’s vocal intonation is within a feminine pitch as she weeps and pleads her case we’re more predisposed to sympathy for her, even in light of her redhanded betrayal of trust. Imagine this woman’s voice being raspy from years of smoking, lower from a higher testosterone  level or chordless like an old woman’s. Our male reflexive response, while still humanistically sympathetic as manageable, would be far different than what a young and associatively breed-worthy woman’s vocal intonations would cue us in to.

Again, we’re seeing hearing a species-valuable evolutionary vestige in the reflex men experience when they hear a reproduction-viable woman cry. To a degree it overrides even our rational capacity to separate the implications of her behavior with the empathy we want to establish with a woman we perceive as being a potential mating opportunity. It’s not that men can’t resist this empathy and apply a rational solution to a problem, it’s that it requires an effort for a man to do so.

It comes back to the Cap N Save a Ho dynamic and the Savior Schema. Empathize, protect and bond with a woman in distress (particularly emotional distress) and the potential payoff will be sexual intercourse.

Men’s effort to sublimate this empathetic sexual opportunism in favor of rational action has not gone unexploited by the feminine imperative. Thus you have women’s facility to cry (even under conditions of culpability) in order to provoke that male protector response. It’s like the crying baby example, stimuli and response.

Also, it’s important to mention women’s preferred method of communication, that is to say covert. When a woman cries she’s moving into an overt form of communication she knows will register with men, and this is usually the result of her having exhausted all her covert utilities. When women opt for overt communication it generally means one or two things have occurred: 1) she has reached the point of exasperation using covert means to convey her message, or 2) she has reached a point of desperation in her condition and needs the visceral response men will react to in order to defend and/or empathize with her (often in spite of herself).


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,608 other followers