Author Archives: Rollo Tomassi

Appeals to Reason

thinker

“A woman in love can’t be reasonable, otherwise she wouldn’t be in love”
— Mae West

Last week The Chateau posted an article about a Beta male asking girls for reasons why they rejected him. In the typical deductive logic that most Betas are prone to use, he runs down a checklist of questions regarding what he thinks killed his chances with the girls he thought he could get with. He petitions four women with questions about themselves, which, being women, all are more than eager to answer.

Do you usually figure out if you wanna do more than make out with someone pretty instantly? Or, is it a slow burn?

Was there anything I did wrong that turned you off?

If you had advice for any guy looking to meet a girl, what would it be?

What makes someone attractive to you? Do you have any types?

Do you feel that you could never date someone shorter than you?

Am I an unattractive person to you?

These are some of the more common questions John Brown puts to the girls, and true to form the girls answer with the standard feminine boilerplate responses that absolve themselves of their part in his rejection, while trying not to hurt the feelings of a guy they knew would never see them naked. With the exception of maybe Vanessa, it’s pretty clear that John’s punching well above his blue-pill weight with these girls even though I’d only rate Victoria as the only HB8 in the bunch.

The questioning is what I’ve come to expect from most chumps mired in their blue pill bubble of applying logic to their sexlessness, but it’s not John’s overt grilling of these women that’s keeping him trapped in the Matrix – it’s his buildups and followups to those questions. John isn’t just interviewing them to ‘get to the bottom of things’ so he can solve his sex problem, he’s leading these women with ‘if then’ logic in an effort to convince them that, by their own words, they should be attracted to him.

John is make the most fundamental error every plugged in chump makes — he’s appealing to women’s reason.

Why Women Can’t ‘Just Get It

Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.

If you read through the responses these women give John from a red pill perspective, you’ll see a pattern emerge. On an intrinsic, subliminal level,  women understand that their genuine desire, their genuine arousal and attraction, has to be an organic process. When a guy like John makes attempts to convince a woman that by her own reasoning (and led by his) she should be with him intimately, it offends and then cancels that process for her.

For women, one of the qualities of the Alpha her Hypergamy demands is a guy who Just Gets It. An Alpha would intrinsically know what women’s arousal and attraction cues are without being told and without even the inclination to ask about them. John’s issue of overtly confirming for himself ‘what women want’ is really an abdication of a Beta who doesn’t get it. And true to form, John’s, and Betas like him, next logical resort is to rationally convince a woman (preferably using her own words) to be attracted to him by attempting to re-impress her of his status.

Betas like this generally end up as the infamous emotional tampon, or the Surrogate Boyfriend to a woman who’s banging the most Alpha Man her looks can attract. However, this appeal-to-reason rationale filters into other aspects of men’s lives. The logical progression for John would be to better identify with the women (really the feminine imperative) he hopes to bang in the future – embody the feminine prerequisites, get the intimate approval. For married or monogamous men this appeal-to-reason may come as a mistaken belief that doing more chores around the house will lead to more (or any) sex for him.

The fallacy of Relational Equity is essentially founded on men’s dependency on appeals to women’s reason. Your doing homework with your children to better their lives (while very ennobling) doesn’t make your wife any hotter for you in bed, nor will it be any bargaining tool should she decide to leave you. Just as John is learning here, women don’t fall in love with who you are, they fall in love with what you are, and no appeal to their reason will convince them otherwise.

Red Pill Women

There’s a lot being made in the manosphere about the emergence of red pill or Game aware women. I’m on record for stating that every woman is a red pill woman, it’s just getting them to drop the feminine-primary, psychological pretense and cop to red pill truths that’s the trick. While I do share the generally wariness of self-identifying “Red Pill Women” and their potential for sanitizing or repurposing Game-awareness to a better feminine liking, I think most women are already aware of the truth of Game. There’s a very real danger in Men accepting “red pill women’s” conversion and acceptance of those truths for exactly the appeal-to-reason dynamic I’ve described here.

Red pill women’s acceptance of what the manosphere forces them to acknowledge about themselves is essentially a convincing appeal to their reason, and this will always make their “conversion” suspect. Regardless of their reported red pill self-awareness, red pill women still want a guy to Just Get It, their desire still can’t be negotiated, and as illogical as it may seem to a manosphere Man, hoping to appeal to the same reason that made her “red pill” still wont get you laid.

Red pill or not, women are still women, and basing any relationship you have with them on appealing to their reason, rather than solid Game awareness and truths, is building you house on a foundation of sand.


Dominance

Dominance

I’ve been watching with some interest the proceedings of the Ariel Castro kidnapping case. As more of the details come to light and the media aggrandizes the victims (virtually insuring a book or TV deal), there’s a lot of uncomfortable questions that need to be answered.

“Most of the sex that went on in that house, probably all of it, was consensual,” Castro said. “These allegations about being forceful on them — that is totally wrong. Because there was times where they’d even ask me for sex –many times. And I learned that these girls were not virgins. From their testimony to me, they had multiple partners before me, all three of them.”

I covered this a bit in He’s Special, making modern comparisons to the War Brides:

,..there’s been a lot of discussion on the forums I frequent about  Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus being held captive by Ariel Castro for a decade. Let that sink in a minute, a decade. That’s 11 years. That’s a lot of life to live. That’s a lot of normal to get used to. There are other cases like this; Jaycee Dugard and  Elizabeth Smart come to mind, but are all of these instances the results of a hard-wired Stockholm Syndrome in women?

Just for the record here, I wouldn’t dream of trying to defend Castro, but in eleven years time a lot can become normal. I have no doubt that Castro held these women captive for 11 years, and the media would have us believe they endured sex dungeon conditions living like the Gimp in Pulp Fiction, but there comes a point of normalcy in ones daily routine life.


“I am not a violent person. I simply kept them there without being able to leave.”

“We had a lot of harmony going on in that home,” he said.

In our lives there is a certain degree of routine and structure most people become accustomed to. I get up at 5am most mornings, I’m at the gym until 7:30 and I’m off to work until 5pm. Somethings change every day but I live in a set of patterns and I know what to expect most of the time. The more I read about Castro the more I’m thinking the guy settled into a state of normalcy with these women and they with him. In 11 years they made no reasonable dramatic effort to escape? They endured a forced abortion and a homebirth (not unlike Jaycee Dugard) and still no collaborative plan they could come up with was effective for 11 years until one day Ariel left the door open? None of these girls were malnourished, and they could stand to lose some weight.

Naturally the feminine-primary meme is that Castro was “blaming the victim“, but I don’t think that was his point. He knows he’s going to prison for life plus 1,000 years, why not just shut up and go away? There was something of a normal life that became a routine for them all for 11 years. That’s 11 Christmases, 11 Easters, 11 independence days. The MSM will spin the story of their heroic support of each other and I don’t imagine the girls wanted to be there, but at some point living with Ariel was their ‘normal’.

Ariel, got sloppy. He got comfortable in that normalcy. Even if he was abusive, after 11 years my guess is he expected for that normalcy to continue and this was what his plea was really about. He actually thought they “had a lot of harmony going on in that house.” It’s easy to pass off his words as insanity, but here was a guy who at least wanted ‘harmony’. At the end of it all, all he wanted was what most men want – his means were evil and reprehensible, but wanted harmony.

Domination

A week back CH had a study and post regarding the importance of dominance and how it’s ultimately dominance that attracts women to men. Of course Roissy would like for looks to play a lesser role in attraction, and my perspective is that arousal is based on the physical to a much greater importance than women can afford to let on, but dominance is a key factor in attraction. I would also argue that an elite physique is the most obvious environmental cue for male dominance. The best form of peacocking is a good build.

However, all of that breaks down if the guy lacks a dominant Alpha mindset. Without that self-confidence and competitive spirit, the best looking guy becomes a foil for a more dominant one. Conversely, enough bravado and fearless genuine Alpha dominance can make even the ugliest of guys attractive by order of degree.

Ariel Castro was one ugly motherfucker, my guess is he never had the Game needed to even sniff at the women in the porn he claims he’s addicted to, but what Ariel had in spades was dominance. Raw forceful dominance he used to enslave not one, but three captured women. Capturing  and physically coercing them to be his prisoners was an act of dominance, but the want, and the expectation that he could have a harmonious normal life with these women was a testament to his (delusional) sense of self-importance.

Irrational self-confidence is the cornerstone of attraction.

When we contemplate male dominance it’s important to remember that to whatever degree we can actualize being dominant – at work, with women, in competition – our own personality, both flaws and attributes, will be manifested in our dominant actions and our beliefs. Castro is a piss poor example of a human being, but he’s an excellent illustration of how his frustrations and his personality were transferred into his actions.

He’s the negative side of that coin, and much of what is termed the Dark Triad of personality traits might also be considered dominant self-importance. However, that same sociopathy that makes for the bad examples is also the root of the positive ones. It really comes down to the individual, their sense of purpose and how they choose to direct that dominance.

If all this sounds like a pep talk to get you to adopt a more dominant mindset it wasn’t really my intent. I’m asked a lot, “Rollo if confidence is the key, then how do I get more confident?” This is a common deductive argument, as if they sold confidence in bottles at the drug store and all you had to do was buy the right brand. It doesn’t work this way. You have to believe it.

It’s fine for me to tell you act irrationally confident, and hope that the act becomes a permanent fixture in your personality, but most men don’t feel confident even when they’re acting confident. Confidence, and dominance, come from real established options and the knowing that you can successfully generate more. This is what makes confidence attractive, it’s the unspoken message to a woman that this guy can, has proven before, and potentially will again, produce more than he needs and other men aspire to do so.


The Script

script

There is a certain formula most romantic comedies rely on to convey how relations between men and women ought to go. It’s an old formula, as in Shakespeare and Greek antiquity old. It goes something like this:

An avowed Alpha bachelor for life questions the existence and nature of love, the sincerity of women, the illogic of not living just for his own self-importance, certainly the institution of marriage and lives, according to his rules, a satisfying life. He rationally observes the “madness” of his friends and fellow men when they fall in love, and out of it. He either mocks their foolishness or is analytical to the core in understanding their madnesses. He is an elemental force of one – a captain controlling the course of his own ship. He’s not wrong in his estimations; they all add up, they all make deductive, provable sense.

That is until he meets her. The ONE special woman who miraculously, alone amongst billions, has the unique power to bring the facade of all that he thinks he is into stark, insightful self-realization. He’s bit by the bug, smitten by the only woman who could fatefully tame the arrogance of his otherwise cruel rationalism. It’s akin to a religious conversion; he’s seen the light, he’s in love and all of his former concerns are proven to be falsehoods – it’s the triumph of true love! The one thing he was missing (the one thing only a woman can possess of course), the last piece to a puzzle he didn’t know he was  putting together, has been added and now he is complete. And they live happily ever after,…

Every writer from Shakespeare to Bronte, to modern writers, use some variation of this outline. The locations, time periods and actors change, but the basic story doesn’t. If you need a contemporary example watch Gerard Butler (King Leonidas, 300) in The Ugly Truth. The reason this formula is so successful and timeless is because it is essentially the fantasy of love and emotionalism trumping logic and reason. Women naturally love this because it puts them into the position of being the ‘cure’ to a man’s illness while making him look like a brooding, sulking, bitter child for clinging so tenaciously to his rationalism, when all he was really pouting about was feeling unloved.

All his intense powers of rationality, all of his implicitly provable facts, all of his monuments and achievements of deduction mean nothing without the only irrational thing a woman can uniquely supply – unknowable, fantastical love. It’s part and parcel of the Myth of the Feminine Mystique which makes women the gatekeepers of the knowledge of love; don’t try to understand it with your silly boy-logic, just leave well enough alone and be eternally grateful to whichever god you worship that a woman has favored you with the love you need to be perfected.

In this story, the build-up to men realizing this is what stokes the feminine indignation that sustains women’s interest, but the real satisfaction is summed up at the end when he finally concedes to the feminine imperative and drops all his pretense and submits to love.

The satisfaction doesn’t last long though, because it was the build-up, the tension, the anxiety, the want of a woman to scream at the TV, “SHE LOVES YOU!! JUST GET IT YOU STUPID MAN!!” that was making it at all interesting. Once he’s submitted and seen her light, all of that fades away to predictable, boring comfort. She’s done with that romance novel, puts it in the pile of them at the garage sale, and moves on to the next. And he’s left with all the echoes of his past rationalism, and explaining to all those he’s influenced and built his reputation upon, how love conquers all and how wrong he was all along.

For that man, it’s the last chapter in the vindication of feminine primacy.

And they lived happily ever after,..

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

After the happily ever after comes the living. He can console himself in his new paradigm, he can hole up in a cocoon of domestication and simply not answer the phone calls of all his old friends who are also playing into the script, who are really only waiting to commiserate with him, but his new domesticity compromise wont allow him to. His old life is gone right? Love conquered him, made him a new man, ready to live up to the new, correct, feminine expectations he formerly railed against, but has been enlightened to and now calls his new masculine purpose. He’s been converted.

He looks into that girl’s eyes, the one who changed him for the better, but the memory of the urgency, the desire to tame him, the adrenaline he inspired all seem like an old song that reminds her of that thrill.

 

I would never wish ill on my fellow man, no matter his crimes, no matter his station, so I wont do so now. I sincerely hope nothing but the best for any man making this surrender, he will need every good fortune that comes along in the face of compromising his reputation and purpose in order to facilitate a woman’s primacy.

However, I’ll add that I also make it my policy never to speak ill of the dead.


Left Behind

left_behind

I’m going to relate a real story of a good friend of mine here as an illustration of a larger dynamic.

My friend Rob was what most guys would call a ‘natural Alpha’ in his younger days; fit, smart in an unlearned kind of way, and to the guys who couldn’t appreciate his straightforwardness, he had the Alpha ‘attitude’ that made him kind of an asshole to the people who didn’t know him. He was in the military for a bit right out of high school and that seemed to work well for him since he learned to be a damn good airframe mechanic and parlayed that into a pretty good career for a while.

Although he was a natural Alpha, Rob’s approach to women was very much conditioned by the influence of the feminine imperative. He had girls who were attracted to him, but he had a tendency for ONEitis so once he’d locked on to Kim that was his focus. He would say “I would do anything and everything for the right girl” because that was his belief, sacrifice and support were his mandates before they’d even met. Eventually she ‘accidentally’ became pregnant when they were both 19.

Rob’s ONEitis took on the predictable sense of masculine purpose to “do the right thing” when she told him the news. They were young, and even 20+ years ago he was aware that couples married young had a very low ‘success’ rate, but as expected he believed he and his soon to be wife would be the exception to that rule. Whether it was his predisposition for ONEitis or his righteous ‘natural’ Alpha stubbornness, at 19 he was determined to be a good father and husband.

Kim was always the less enthusiastic partner in the marriage, but she wasn’t going to have an abortion, and while she was uncertain about Rob’s future potential at 19 she married him. 5 years later they had two daughters and then a son 2 years after that. I would describe their marriage as one of convenience except that Rob genuinely loved Kim and the kids. His Alpha attitude only drove him on that much further as a good provider, but as Kim and he entered their early 30’s and their older children became more self-sufficient it was becoming clear that she was subtly and indifferently distancing herself from Rob.

At about 29 Kim went to work in a middle management position. Up until then she’d been a stay-at-home mom, but with the kids in school (except their youngest) she wanted to get into working. For having 3 children Kim was in exceptionally good shape (too good of shape in hindsight), Rob had put on a few pounds, but still had his upper body muscularity. Kim was at the gym and work more than she was at home now, and it was something that even heroic-ONEitis Rob was beginning to be annoyed with.

Kim had new friendships at work now, mostly single women in their mid to late 20’s while Kim was almost 31. All of her new work girlfriends were single and wanting her to come out with them for drinks after work. They didn’t call them GNOs (girls night out) but this is what they were without calling them such. Dutiful Rob would look after the kids and content himself with beer and movies at home. Even as this became a more common occurrence Rob still clung to the heroic, supportive, father/husband/provider role. Rob still wasn’t what anyone would call a Beta, but in his ONEitis devotion and his increasing domestic role this is what Kim saw in him.

Kim went from living vicariously through her 20’s girlfriends’ weekend stories, to watching them from the sidelines at the clubs, to actively engaging in their escapades. I’m sure most readers know where this is going, and yes Kim eventually cheated on Rob. I had the dubious, but serious, honor of talking him out of murdering both Kim and a co-worker guy she’d hooked up with at 4am after he’d tracked them both to the motel they ended up at that night. He had the kids in the car with him the whole time we were on the phone.

Missing Out

I’m presenting this story, not as some precautionary tale to scare you into not marrying early so much as to better understand the other side of doing so. Anyone who’s read my blog long enough knows I advocate men not even becoming seriously monogamous until after the age of 30. I realize that for most men this is a pretty tall order, and for most guys untenable, but the principle is that men need to realize and actualize their SMV potential before they can accurately assess their true role in the SMP, and then, evaluate the quality of any woman they’d want to become monogamous with according to their Game awareness.

My friend Rob never made that connection and lived (and still lives) by what an adolescent social skill set and his feminized conditioning had taught him. Rob was enraged about the infidelity, but he took Kim back, they went to the ubiquitous marriage counseling, and attempted the typical negotiations of Kim’s genuine desire for Rob. Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20’s”, Kim’s Hypergamy didn’t care.

At this point, Kim’s leaving Rob was just a formality, but the end came when Rob had an on-the-job injury to his back and he could no longer perform his job. He got pretty good disability, but it wasn’t what Kim had built up to making. Blood was in the water, and Kim went feral. Eventually she took the kids and left Rob to his own means, while she moved half a state away to “find herself” and get into the scene she missed in her 20’s.

For the men in the manosphere who want to use Game as a means to locking down an idealized wife, a lot gets made about marrying (or becoming monogamous) with a woman while she’s young – preferably in or just before her peak SMV years (18-24). Generally the idea is that if you can get to her early enough – before she rides the infamous cock carousel – and she’s cut from the right cloth for monogamy, then by way of a guy being the (hopefully) first Alpha she’s encountered, she’ll solidly pair-bond with him – bearing him healthy children in her fertilely prime years and remain his emotionally bonded, loyal and devoted wife for a lifetime.

I like this fantasy, as I’m sure most idealistic men would. In fact it might even be realistic for a guy in his peak SMV years (30-36) to pull this off with the right amount of status and Amused Mastery if his own value is well established. However, as per the story of Rob and Kim here, there is another risk to the ‘marry young’ scenario and that’s what I call the Left Behind dynamic.

Left Behind

In contemporary western society, even the most farm-raised, home schooled of girls are still going to be incessantly bombarded by the ‘be all you can be’ (previously ‘you can have it all’) social advertising the Feminine Imperative has for girls. Raising a daughter in such times (and I speak from experience) is fraught with risks of appearing to be limiting her potential while attempting educate her about the real limitations of women’s fast-burn SMV and the choices she’ll have to make very early in her life that will affect her later life once she’s past those peak years. I should add that for a father to even hint at these limitations publicly makes him instantly guilty of misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege oppression and every other male-crime the Feminine Imperative has a long established name for. However, even mothers will be accused of being domineered by that patriarchal mindset for attempting to educate their daughters about the real limitations of being a woman today and choosing between different life paths.

With this as the foundation, the inherent risk of finding, not to mention wifing-up, the ideal young girl, predisposed to marriage (unplanned pregnancies not withstanding) is that as a she matures, a woman begins to question the choices she made. While it’s almost a cliché now to breakdown the life path that led to the regret of never-married or divorced aging spinsters in the age of career women, the other side of that coin is the early-married woman contemplating ‘her life that could’ve been’ and the motivation to change her path. It’s easy to find fault with women who delayed accepting a marriage proposal for their own SMV convenience or self-interest, but it’s the early-married Kim’s of the world who are far more susceptible to the Eat, Pray, Love script as they approach the downslide of their SMV.

Ironically it’s the same feminine-primary social influence that encourages ‘be all you can be’ (and demeans her for not living up to her girl-power potential) that also embraces her when she re-plots her life course after leaving the husband of her youth. Mix in her single and divorced friends’ encouragement with fem-centric social promptings and top it off with an innate Hypergamy that never stops subconsciously asking “is this guy the best you can do?” after 12 years of marriage and you can see why she’d feel left behind.

As a Game aware, red pill Man it’s imperative that you consider both sides of a woman’s choices and adjust your Game accordingly. Half the reason I made the rough attempt at graphing the SMP and men and women’s SMV’s respective to each gender’s age is so men could predict and expect the behaviors, mindsets and social variables women will be susceptible to at various phases of their lives. It is, however, important, to consider the choices women have made in the lives they led before and after they meet you. It’s becoming increasingly too easy for men to think, “damn, if only I’d have met her when she was younger and inexperienced, she’d be more attached to me now.” This isn’t always the case.


Crisis of Motive

woman-pulling-puppet-strings

I had an interesting conversation with a cocktail waitress recently about how she wore the sexy outfits she did because they reaffirmed who she was.

“I do it for me.”

“Really? Lingerie, high heels, push up bra, that’s all for you?”

“Of course. I’m my own woman.”

“So, it’s not about the attention and affirmation you get from the men around you.”

“Well, that’s nice, if it’s coming from the right kind of guy, but I don’t wear what I do for them.”

“So if I came over to your house unannounced at like, 4 in the afternoon, you’d be wearing all this while you were vacuuming the house and not in sweatpants and a t-shirt?”

“Well,..no, but that’s not the point, I’m more comfortable in sweats,..”

“I see.”

It was far too easy to box her into the corner she was painting herself into, but I wont be too hard on her since this crisis of motive is also found in men. I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard guys at Gold’s tell me the same thing as to why they workout.

“I do it for me! Yeah, of course, chicks check me out more now that I’ve dropped the fat and bulked up, but this is all for me man.”

I’ll admit, I was that guy at one time. For a guy it makes sense to cop the story of singularity of purpose since it implies that he’s his ‘own man’ and not improving himself to become more acceptable to the women he observably and admittedly wants to get with. This is the paradox of self-improvement – are you doing it for yourself or because you want to others to respond more positively to you? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, it can be both.

There are certainly many side benefits to bodybuilding – improved health, attitude, lower stress, life-preserving function that results from increased muscularity, etc. but the minute we drop ‘a better sex life’ into that equation then we have to qualify it all with the “I do it for me” standby; as if our motivating desire to get laid is any less important than all of that. I’ll tell you right now, with 25+ years of lifting on my record, while I enjoy a lower life/health insurance premium as a result, I enjoy sex far too much to ever let myself become a fat ass. I do it for me and I do it because Mrs. Tomassi (and other women) responds positively to it and I enjoy the results.

This is a fundamental question guys swallowing the red pill and adopting a new Game-aware life have to answer – who are you doing it for?

There are a lot of traps involved in answering this question; traps that other AFC crabs in the barrel will use to pull you back in, traps that will attempt to convince you that you’re ‘being someone you’re not‘ and traps that will flatter you for your insightful desire to improve yourself, but only insofar as it serves feminine purposes. This is a common tar pit for men on the edge of accepting Red Pill truth:

From the Unbearable Triteness of Hating:

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Whether he was intending to or not, Roissy was of course responding to exactly this crisis of motive. I don’t specifically agree or disagree with all the tenets of men who identify as MGTOW (I understand the reasoning), but I must point out that, from what I read, the crux of their beliefs are rooted in this same motive crisis. Is what you do, who you are, what you believe, a genuine, organic result of your own decision making (doing it for you) or is all you are the result of a latent purpose to better please a woman (or the Feminine Imperative for that matter)?

Introspect

Aunt Giggles had a post about a week ago lauding all the introspective men concerned with their own self-improvement. Bravo! Bravo introspective Beta, dig down deeper and embrace your inner white knight. While it may range between ego-flattering to self-evincing, true introspection is only useful in the light of why  you’re being introspective in the first place. You may get a pat on the back from the Feminine Imperative for introspectively aligning yourself with the Beta model it’s conditioned you for, or you may get a well needed cold bucket of Red Pill awareness splashed in your face as the result of your introspection, but the question is still who or what are you being introspective for?

With a crisis of motive, it’s very easy to not only cast doubt about the motives of others when they don’t agree with our own, but also to reaffirm our own faith in our own decision making. How many times have Game denialists said something like “those red pill guys are just misogynists, only interested in getting laid as much as possible”? This belief-disqualifier is based on the the presumption that sex is a red pill Man’s only, true, motivator – not himself, not for his own enlightenment, not of his own genuine volition. Red pill guys believe what they do to get laid and therefore dance to the tune women (or their sexual impulse) are playing for them. Distilled down to it’s base, the message is they aren’t acting as individual rational agents, but as robotic slaves beholden to external influences (in this case women or their sex drives). In other words, someone or something is controlling their decisions for them.

That’s some powerful affirmation for the one making accusations of disingenuousness, because it confirms for himself that not only is he a ‘genuine’ actor, but his insight must necessarily be more valid than the guy he’s judging. The problem with this, as I’m sure most are now aware, is that the accuser is already molded by outside influences himself. Thus, his motivation for accusation is suspect of a crisis of motive.

I understand this is some heady shit to take in, but I think it’s important to consider for guys on the cusp of Game-awareness, doubting their genuine want for changing themselves, as well as for guys falling back on motive crisis reasonings in order to justify why other men might disagree with them. I think an important question Men need to ask themselves is why am I changing my belief, my customs, my interpretations? It may be that it comes as a result of introspection, or a new awareness brought to them from an outside influence (the manosphere), but the answer to the question of who do you do it for is both yourself and the outside motivator.

So what made you change? Was it something I or another blogger wrote? Was it a traumatic experience that shocked you into awareness? Or were you just getting what you’d always gotten by doing what you’d always done?


Beer and Boobs

I can remember watching a few episodes of The Man Show back in 2002 or 2003. I was finishing my degree at the time, and although I was much older than most of my college peers then, I actually had offers from fraternities to join during ‘rush’ week. I never took them up on it; my being at least 10 years older than even the oldest ‘brother’ didn’t sit right with me, and the fact I was working 40+ hours a week didn’t leave me much time to ‘go greek’. Of the few friends I had time for then, at least 4 were frat guys, and they loved The Man Show.

These guys knew of my interest in gender and personality studies in (my then minor) behavioral psychology, but it was mostly due to my presenting them with something they could agree with about how women were. They innocently suggested I check out The Man Show thinking I would be interested in it because “it’s finally a show for guys.” Back then I was dissecting the masculine ridicule and caricaturizations of male roles in movies and TV and these guys were enthusiastic about what I was writing and telling them.

I thought the show was pretty funny at first. I still love and reference Adam Carola, and his insights on gender. However, after watching the show for a while, something wasn’t sitting well for me. I couldn’t put my finger on it then, but at some point I thought, “man this is stupid, can’t we do better than this?” The realization I was making was if this was a “show for men” then men were, well, kind of stupid.

I was already well aware of the dumbing-down of the masculine roles in popular media (TV, movies, etc.), but when what was supposedly an exclusively male oriented show is offered it seems that masculine ridicule is only reaffirmed. I’m using The Man Show as an illustration of a bigger dynamic here – if all we had to go on was popular  (i.e. feminized) culture to help us characterize what is masculine then we’d be bad off enough, but it appears that men themselves are almost subconsciously complicit in reinforcing these feminine-defined cartoons of ‘how men really are.’

I love football. I would probably bore you to tears with my enthusiasm about next season and how the pre-season can’t get here soon enough. Ask me about baseball, I’ll tell you I like the Dodgers, but I know relatively nothing about America’s pastime. Soccer, golf, tennis, hockey, I couldn’t carry a conversation about any of them. I like big boobs (fake or real), I like women’s long legs and great assess. You all know I’ve worked in the liquor industry for over 9 years, so I have a vested interest in booze too. However, these natural interests of mine are only small component elements of who I am as a Man.

Granted, sex and alcohol seem to be the top two elements contributing to human happiness, but there is much more to me, much more to my existence as a man, than my base impulses. The problem with defining masculinity in terms of our root interests is that men begin to believe that’s all we have the potential for. For all of its social influence, the Feminine Imperative has no real frame of reference when it comes to the male experience. So in its effort to marginalize the masculine, effectively emasculating society, its only recourse is to define manhood in terms of what best demonizes masculinity. The Imperative can’t afford men to define masculinity for themselves, so the real roles of men are either ridiculous buffoons in need of uniquely feminine correction, or they’re boorish, brutes, poisoned by testosterone and little more than alcoholic, easily manipulable, walking hard-ons.

That’s what men get in their man-space. Hooters, football, beer and boobs. Even in their ‘man-caves’ this is what a woman can expect to find. Left to their own devices, men would simply turn the world into one grandiose Bro-Culture. Nowhere will you find the dreamers, the leaders, the thinkers, the artists or engineers – in girl-world, the majority of men are either pigs or damaged goods.

But if the Feminine Imperative is anything, it’s self-effacing and self-contradicting. According to the Feminine Imperative, for all of the feral worst it characterizes masculinity as, it’s not enough to accept men’s nature as so. You see nothing, not even the feminine reinforced pig-man nature is actually real, it’s just a mask men are socialized to wear.

So what is real masculinity? Make no mistake, the confusing redefinition of masculinity is a deliberate effort in social control on the part of the Feminine Imperative. Pointing out its schizophrenic misunderstanding (or intentional distortion) of the masculine is easy enough, but men have unwittingly adopted and reinforced their own gender role confusion. Either by embracing the Bro-Culture lie or by subscribing wholesale to the feminine identification of what masculinity should be, men are complicit in limiting themselves from defining masculinity for themselves.

Understand this now, a fem-centric society wants you to believe that masculinity is loutish, beer-swilling frat boys AND horribly damaged male psyches socialized into being so. A fem-centric society can’t afford to allow men to self-define masculinity, because it throws that deep feminine need for security and control over to the men they cannot trust because of the same definition it encourages for its own control.


You Need Sex

Index1

When I first got laid in 1985, I went to the bathroom, toweled off the equipment and walked down to 7-11 for a big gulp. No blue birds landed on my shoulder to whistle Disney songs and no ray of sunlight broke through the clouds to shine on me. Nor did I think “damn, that was terrible, I’ve lost all respect for myself, I’ll never be the same again,…sob!”, it felt pretty good. The traffic lights still worked, the busses ran on time (sorta) and food still tasted good.

I’ve had sex with over 40 women since then. I got laid first when I was 17 and on average I’ve been having sex with my wife 2-3 times a week (and a hummer on her off weeks) for coming up on 17 years now. Sex is a great part of life, sometimes it’s memorable, sometimes it’s taking care of myself, but it’s never been some epic experience of cosmic importance. It keeps you healthy in body, mind and spirit, and the best I can describe sex is that it’s an important part of a balanced life experience. People have been fucking a lot longer than anyone’s had time to contemplate the esoteric significance of sex.

I can remember listening to an episode of the Tom Leykis show when he was on terrestrial radio, and he described what sex is like for men. He said, sex is like taking a piss for a guy – sooner or later he’s got to take care of himself and let loose. Now, most guys would prefer to take a piss in a nice clean bathroom, where the towels smell good and he can feel comfortable and unhurried. Sure, he’d love to have the occasion to take a piss in the bathroom of a four star hotel with gold plated faucets and all the trimmings, but when he really has to go, he’ll stop along the side of the road or take a piss at a dirty gas station urinal. Sooner or later he’s gonna have to go.

What prompted today’s post was my reading a recent blog entry of a notable christo-manosphere commenter. I’m not going to name him since I think most of the readers who frequent Rational Male  from Dalrock or Sunshinemary’s blogs already know who I’m referencing. What’s important is his life’s plight. The nuts and bolts of his post was his lament in finding a suitable, monogamous mate to marry, have sex with and (presumedly) have a life and children with.

It’s not too tall an order for even the most abject Beta of men. To be sure, nowadays it increasingly requires a good amount of self-delusion and / or faith for a guy to consider monogamy, and red pill disillusionment can help or aggravate, but statistically more people are engaging in monogamy than not at some stage of their lives. However, this blogger feels doomed and relegated to what I can only assume is a self-inflicted life of celibacy due to his religious convictions and his inability to connect with the properly prescribed virgin bride who fits his ideal.

Now before I dive too far in here, I’m not going to debate the merits or limitations of this guy’s conviction. Before I started considering this post I realized I’ll be run up the moralist flagpole for even using his predicament as my example, but what I’m going to focus on is the need men (and by association women) have for sex. Try to keep this in mind.

Big Heads and Little Heads

One very common dismissal of red pill awareness I read from blue pill men is this feigned, blasé indifference to sex.

“All that Red Pill, PUA shit is for guy’s who obsess over sex. They only go to the lengths they do to get laid and never see the bigger picture. You don’t need sex you know, you wont die from not getting laid.”

For the most part this pseudo-indifference is really a feminized, conditioned, response couched in Beta Game. The idea, of course, is for the blue pill guy to promote the public perception that he’s above his sexual impulses in the hopes that any girl within earshot (or reading his comments online) will recognize his uniqueness in not letting his cock do his thinking for him. From a male deductive logic standpoint it makes sense to the feminized male – women have all told him how put off they are with guys who only think about sex, so he’ll identify with the women he’d like to get with and “not be like other guys.

Boys subscribing to this identification usually find themselves sexually frustrated by the very women they hope to connect with in their sexual indifference because, on a core level, women are psychologically insulted by men who actively desexualize themselves in order to get with them. Despite every verbal protestation women can muster, women are aroused by, and ego-affirmed by, Men who unashamedly display the covert social cues of wanting to fuck them.

Thats the Beta Game behind the “you don’t need sex” Buffer, but there’s more too this rationale than that. Technically the Beta reasoning is correct; physically, you’re not going to die if you don’t get laid. You could probably masturbate to relieve yourself or live a sexless existence due to a physical disability and live a productive life as satisfying as you can manage it. If you don’t know what you’re missing or if a sexual substitute does the job, what’s the difference, right? The line of reasoning is that if it isn’t food, water or oxygen it isn’t really a necessity for existence.

From an absolutist perspective it’s one of those conveniently unassailable positions that excuse a guy’s inability to get laid – “no one really needs sex, and if you think you do you’re obviously preoccupied with it and letting your little head do the thinking for you.” By this line of reasoning, basic necessities like clothing and shelter could be considered superfluous needs for living, but since it’s sex, and in most respects hedonistically enjoyable, special consideration has to be given.

The unhealthy disconnect here is that human beings do in fact need sex. We can attach other ephemeral aspects to the sex act (or masturbation if that’s the only recourse), like love, emotion, commitment, etc., but on a base level your body needs sexual release in one form or another. Yes, you can willfully override the need, just like you can overcome hunger while you’re fasting or on a hunger strike, but the need is still the operative in that act of will. Once hunger, breathing and thirst are satisfied, sex is the single most influential drive the human species (really, most any species) is motivated by. Society is driven by sex, cultures evolve around it and personal achievements, as well as horrible atrocities are the result of our inborn prompt to satisfy our sexual urges.

Sigmund Freud once said, “all energy is sexual”, meaning that subliminally we will redirect our motivation for ungratified sexual impulse to other endeavors. Thus it’s men, being the sex with the highest amount of libido inducing testosterone, who must look for far more outlets to transfer this motivation to than women. So is it any real surprise that it’s historically been Men who’ve primarily been the empire builders, the conquerors, the creators, and destroyers who’ve (for better or worse) moved humanity the most significantly?

Life Experience

If I said I felt pity for men like the blogger I mentioned earlier, who through their own conviction or bad circumstance, have never had sex in their lives, I don’t think I’d be accurate in expressing myself. I feel a profound sadness for them; a sadness similar to when you meet someone who’s lost a limb or has had to live with a physical or mental disability. For guys who want to tell you that you don’t need sex to live a fulfilling life I’m sure this sounds like conceit. There are plenty of inspirational individuals who live their lives without arms or legs, or with other disabilities, that we can all look up to for “overcoming the odds”, but the reason they are inspiring is because they must strive for a quality of life that others simply take for granted. Run a marathon and it’s quite an achievement, but do it as a paraplegic and it’s a triumph of human will.

Sometimes a sexless life is a choice of conviction, but more often it’s not a choice for men, it’s simply their circumstance. I grieve every time I read a comment by, or receive a painful request for help from a late 30’s man who’s still a virgin. Sex is a part of a healthy human experience; if you want to apply meaning to it, if you only consider its legitimacy within marriage or monogamy, or if you enjoy sex with many women, the function is still the same.

I felt this way after I read the aforementioned blogger relating his frustration about his not being able to find an appropriate woman to wife under today’s social climate. This post isn’t an attempt to convince him to adjust his expectations; I can’t necessarily empathize with his convictions or his reasonings (I’ve always enjoyed sex, and never felt guilt for enjoying it), however, I can empathize with his deep desire to become intimate and sexual with a woman. This healthy human experience is denied to him by conviction, but it doesn’t alleviate his desire for it.

He needs sex.


SMV Ratios & Attachment

Print

Since I produced the SMP graph last year I have had more than a few earnest readers and irritated critics call me to the carpet about the variables involved in estimating even a rough sketch of the modern, western, SMP landscape. Before I get into today’s post let me reiterate that my SMV chart is an imperfect tool; sexual market evaluation doesn’t happen in a vacuum, I know that, but it is a necessary starting point and framework against which we can better understand social, behavioral and psychological dynamics between the genders.

One of the larger messages this SMV life-overview brings to light is the rise and fall of an individual’s sexual market value according to their age and the personal implications that phase of their life has on affecting that valuation. I originally published the SMV chart with the intent of enlightening men as to what their future SMV (should) will be in relation to women’s faster burning SMV, and the social conventions women, and the feminine imperative, have established in order to derail that awareness to better service women’s sexual priorities and hypergamy. However, since then I’ve seen this chart passed around the manosphere and into outside forums as an example of other related gender dynamics. The chart has other uses than my original idea.

The Ennobled Beta

With this in mind I was debating the idea of secure attachments in relationships with a friend over my summer hiatus. He’s what I’ll call an ‘ennobled Beta’, not necessarily guilty of outright white knighting, but is steeped in his Matrix conditioning enough to conflate a prescribed male role in egalitarian equalism with masculinity. In other words, to him, to be a ‘supportive husband’ ® is to presume a position of absolute equalism in his relationship. Since he subscribes to the feminized notion of an historic condition of ‘male privilege’, generally this means he believes that limiting his inborn masculine nature allows his wife to be “more equal”. To him, real manhood is repressing his innate masculinity (such as it is) so that his wife will feel less inhibited in becoming something more than what a ‘masculine’ society will permit.

Yes, it’s classic Beta Identification Game; nothing I haven’t engaged already in the past decade. And yes, it’s also the classic feminist boilerplate that feminism has bred into contemporary males for over 50 years now. What hit me during this conversation is the presumption of an idealized equalism that can in some way be realized between a man and a woman in an LTR. The reason the topic came up with us was due to his wanting for his wife to be more aggressive with him sexually. He simply couldn’t grasp that his wife didn’t want to take the initiative with him in the bedroom. Here he was explaining the virtues of being a ‘better male’ in his playing fair and even with his wife, yet for all his giving her space to grow, she wouldn’t be the sexual instigator with him despite his equalist expectations that she would feel comfortable being that instigator. In a way he subscribes to the Relational Equity fallacy – he believes she ought to appreciate him sexually because he’s invested so much of himself in ensuring she  feels like his equal.

True Neutral

The problem he’s dealing with is the result of his belief in true gender neutrality. Learn this now, taken to its logical extreme, the end result of true gender neutrality is androgyny. No sexual dimorphism, just simple homogenous androgyny. Fortunately for us, nature abhors homogeny and has always found dynamic ways around the dead ends that the inbreeding of androgyny produces.

My friend’s wife’s sexual passivity (and general disinterest) is one such dynamic. Try as he may, no amount of social equalization will prompt his wife’s biological sexual impulse – in essence he’s attempting  to negotiate her desire with himself.

For all his frustration and inability to accept red pill truths I have to thank him because it was from this conflict that I had a starting point in estimating relationship attachment theory and its relation to SMV.

Roissy once proposed that the strength and security of any relationship rests in the disparity between each person’s sexual market value. While I endorse this principle entirely, I’m going to take it a bit further. As a general principle it works well for the guy wanting to maintain his frame in an LTR, however there’s more wrapped up in that SMV disparity than I think has been explored thus far.

As I began here, SMV doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Men may have an Alpha dominance established only to have it knocked back down after failing a particularly bad shit test. He may rate lower or higher depending on a social status that’s in flux. A woman must find ways to cope with an ever decaying SMV once she reaches her SMV peak and begins her decline towards the Wall. Childbirth and rearing, weight gain, satisfying a security need, and many other factors may also accelerate this process.

What I’m going to do here is propose a general outline for SMV disparity based on the ratio between both sexes. Before you read my outlines, keep in mind the Cardinal Rule of Relationships: In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least. The overarching concept here is that the person in the relationship with the superior sexual market value will at least be perceived by the person of lesser value to need them less than the other. If it is established by concrete social proof that one person is of higher SMV than the other, it’s usually an accepted reality of that relationship, but bear in mind that it is the fluctuating perception of SMV that has more influence on the attachment and strength of that relationship.

Finally, from a feminine perspective it’s important to remember that Hypergamy is a game of perceptions, testing, confirmations and retesting new perceptions. This process has a pronounced effect on SMV evaluation, which is then influenced by a woman’s own self-perceptions.

1:1

This is the position of Tue Neutral I illustrated with my friend’s situation above. I’m starting here because this ratio is the mythological ideal every equalist will tell you they’re striving for. Be they male or female, what adherents of equal balance fail to consider is that real, sustainable equilibrium in SMV is an impossibility. What every modern woman and gelded male in an LTR will tell you is that they believe they are common examples of that SMV equilibrium. The truth is that their ego investment in that equalist idealism wont allow for the real introspect necessary to accurately evaluate what their true individual SMV really is –both in relation to themselves and the greater whole of society in their demographic.

A 1:1 SMV doesn’t exist. I’m sure there will be naysayers who feel they “play it fair” with their wives or girlfriends, but the fact remains that SMV is always in flux and doesn’t allow for a true, sustainable equilibrium. Hypergamy is an easy example; fail one too many shit tests and your equitable 1:1 ratio slips to 2:1 in a woman’s favor. A man getting to the gym more frequently or getting a promotion in status may be enough to upset that 1:1 balance. There are simply too many variables in a contemporary relationship to take the notion of SMV equilibrium seriously. Furthermore, we must consider the effect that social media plays in women self-evaluations of their own SMV. And this is only one (albeit significant) social distortion that can upset the idealistic equitable balance.

Even in the most stable and SMV balanced pairings, the simple fact that both sexes’ SMV peaks occur at differing phases of life makes the notion of a contented balance laughable. However it is important for a Man to bear in mind that his SMV will eventually exceed that of any woman if he continues to improve himself and grows personally, physically and financially into his SMV peak years. There will eventually come a time when a woman’s SMV will decay to the point that her necessitousness will exceed her value. In other words, due to her fast burn-fast decay SMV, and recognized or not, she will eventually need a Man more than he needs her when he enters his peak SMV phase and she’s declined to the Wall of her own.

It’s during this critical phase that a woman must rely on her man’s socially expected love, charity, obligation and parental investment to maintain his secure attachment to her in the face of an obvious SMV imbalance. As I’ve covered before, women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices men make to facilitate women’s reality – and once those facial wrinkles and cellulite can no longer be disguised by makeup or collagen, women will still persist in the expectation of monogamous obligation, in preference to the genuine desire, love, devotion, etc. a man may legitimately feel about her regardless of her wrinkles.

2:1

Roissy has defined this ratio in the past as the golden mean of SMV between the genders – so long as the man is on the beneficial side of it. The most successful, stable and loving relationships don’t result from being equally yoked – they result from a mutually acknowledged SMV superiority of a positively masculine male and his adoring, yet subconsciously anxious, woman who’s up to a point below him in SMV evaluation.

Some guys get to this position by default. Either by genetics, prior hard work or simply being single at the phase of life when his SMV is peaking while hers is in decline, a man can prolong this ratio far longer and far more realistically than the 1:1 idealization. This isn’t to say his SMV can’t be reduced by failing a shit test or by unfortunate personal circumstances, but the durability and resiliencey of his higher SMV affords him more leeway in recovering from these missteps or calamities.

A man need not necessarily be an Alpha cad to establish this ratio, all that’s required is an acknowledged recognition of this SMV imbalance and the appropriate appreciation and adoration from the woman involved. There are plenty of Betas who enjoy (or eventually will enjoy) the benefits of a 2:1 ratio even when they don’t (or refuse to) recognize an SMV imbalance that weighs in their favor.

From a female side a 2:1 ratio is generally what most modern women find themselves dealing with; through realized fact or by self-deluded overestimation of their own SMV, most women already presume they are the party with the higher SMV. These are the naggers, the brow beaters, the women who wistfully to aggravatedly wish their men were more than they are. They crave the SMV imbalance that a dominant Alpha would satisfy, yet through their own ego investments, or due to their inability to lock that Alpha down, must relegate themselves to being the less necessitous person in their LTR.

3:1

While this is a tenable situation for a Man it borders on the unhealthy. Marginal fame, notoriety or an actualized condition of widely acknowledged social proof can make for a 3:1 SMV ratio. These are the Men who other women can’t help but be attracted and aroused by, and other men aspire to be in one way or another. The women they do pair off with are faced with two options: either maturely accept this inequity and rely on feminine wiles (and sexual performance) to create a situation of ‘value added’ emotional investment and secure his monogamy, or accept that she will only be a short term breeding option for him before a woman who’s a better SMV option presents herself to him.

Only the most secure of women in this ratio pairing don’t suffer from an state of passive dread. While a 2:1 pairing may force a women to deal with marginal self-doubt and underlying competition anxiety, a woman in a 3:1 pairing will have to confront the dread of loss that accompanies a less stable pairing. From a Hypergamic perspective, she’s hit the evolutionary jackpot – sexual pairing with a mate she wouldn’t normally have access to. Fat women who garner the drunken attentions of an out-of-options man of higher SMV make for the most common occurrences of a 3:1 pairing. Irrational jealousy and ‘accidental pregnancies’ are not uncommon in this pairing.

I should point out that a 3:1 pairing may also be the result of a 2:1 pairing that lasted into a man’s peak years and bumped him up a point, or more likely, the woman depreciated down a point or more as she hit the Wall.

From the female side, a 3:1 ratio is generally only a temporary condition. Leaving a man who is recognizably a full 2 points beneath her in SMV is really only a formality. Generally this female-side pairing is the result of an extreme circumstance, a particularly materialistic woman or a man who convinced a woman he was more Alpha than he seemed only to backslide into abject Betaness once he mistakenly thought he could get comfortable with her and expected her to love him for just being himself.

It should also be considered that a 3:1 female-side pairing may also be the result of a post Wall professional woman pairing off with the only Beta so intently conditioned in feminine-primary psychology that she would consider him preferable to celibacy.

4+:1

We’re pushing into the improbable here, but these pairing do exist. Your first thought may be the famous celebrity or musician who marries a ‘commoner’, but the more likely scenario is one where a previously more equitable pairing was solidified and one partner decayed so dramatically that this extreme imbalance resulted. It’s easy to find online before and after examples of women progressively fattening  from a trim sexy girl of 19 to a 200lbs+ landmonster of 26. I wish I could say these were outliers, but as all too many bloggers in the manosphere will attest, it’s increasingly common.

Women in the ‘before-and-after’ demographic who find themselves in a 4+:1 are often the most dependent upon the feminine social convention established to delimit men’s sexual selectivity. The Body Fat embracers and the ‘shallow’ men shamers are the most obvious examples.

Other than for the most egregious of gold diggers a sustainable 4:1 balance from the feminine side is a virtual impossibility.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,711 other followers