Author Archives: Rollo Tomassi

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.


Can’t Buy Me Alpha

Buy_Alpha

I can’t imagine most of the manosphere, to say nothing about MRAs, haven’t read about the latest feminist triumphalism in a recent Pew study that’s determined that 23% of women now out-earn men. The ironic inconsistencies are an easy mark for most red pill men, but I imagine they’re particularly galling for MRAs:

Moms now earn more than dads in almost a quarter of all U.S. families, the highest level in history. It’s a huge leap from 50 years ago when only a handful of moms were bringing home the bacon, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center.

Overall, women – including those who are unmarried – are now the leading or solo breadwinners in 40 percent of U.S. households, compared with just 11 percent in 1960, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau analyzed by Pew.

Cue the MRA rage posts about unmarried women receiving uniquely feminine social benefits and entitlements men have no access to, not to mention state enforced male child support for unmarried mothers and remarried mothers. I get it, really I do, but my emphasis here isn’t so much about the factual information being skewed by the feminine imperative, rather its neurolinguistic delivery of  those distortions.

That’s both good news and bad news, depending on which end of the scale you examine. At the top level, educated women are catching up with men in the workforce. But at the bottom rungs, there are more single mothers than ever and most of them are living near the poverty line.

Bear in mind this report by Amy Langfield was what hastily replaced this report by Bill Briggs – For Richer or Poorer?, When wives make more, some men’s health suffers – on NBCs frontpage. As I’ve written before, the feminine imperative will never allow even its own message to be sullied with a male perspective.

When wives bring home more bacon than their husbands, household budgets surely may sizzle but in some cases, men may pay a price. Some guys who lose their role as primary earners are known to lose sexual steam and may deal with insomnia and other issues, researchers say.

In relationships where women’s wages become slightly fatter than what their spouses pocket, scientists have determined that men are about 10 percent more likely to require prescription pills to combat erectile dysfunction, insomnia and anxiety, according to a recent study by Washington University in St. Louis’ Olin Business School.

Naturally the comment section is rife with feminine ridicule and accusations of men’s masculine insecurities being made manifest in not being able to get it up when wifey makes more money. The apex fallacy is a helluva drug for the feminine imperative.

“There is a powerful social norm for many men that it’s important to make more than their wives and, essentially, when that social norm is violated, what this does is make them feel emasculated,” said Lamar Pierce, a professor of strategy at Olin who completed the study in February, working with colleagues in Denmark. Other research has shown that men with wives who earn more are more likely to cheat. 

It’s going to be important to read that linked 2010 article about men who’s wives earn more being more likely to cheat, because this is the crux of who gets to decide what emasculation feels like for men. Lamar Pierce’s assertion, as with most blank slaters, is that masculinity is the result of “powerful social norms”  and not the result of a culmination of what millennia of biological and psychological evolution physically made of men. The nuts and bolts get discarded when the feminine imperative defines the terms of what men feel and why they do.

The problem here is that the nuts and bolts are about the physical male sexual response. What is it about women earning more money (excluding for single mother bonuses) that makes them less likely to pass the boner test? If the feminine imperative is to be believed, it’s due to men’s fragile egos and masculinity being defined by his ability to provide. No mention is made of women’s lack of femininity, physical sexual attraction or simple logistics when she’s the one tasked with bringing home the bacon. No mention is given about women’s desire to even be in the position of being the sole or majority breadwinner.

Buying Alpha

The main problem with women earning more than their men is far more hardwired into both gender’s psyches than the experts consigned by the feminine imperative will ever be allowed to relate. It’s not very complimentary to the imperative because it reveals far too much of its real inner workings and exposes its social engineering to effect them.

On the feminine side we have the cruel reality of feminine Hypergamy that’s constantly reminded that the man she’s paired with (or would pair with) isn’t capable of, or is less capable of, the provisioning her Hypergamy ultimately demands of him, and which she can provide for herself. For the single professional woman this imbalance results in their constant search for a man they consider “her equal”, and is the cause for many post-Wall women’s common lament of not being able to find the guy she thinks she deserves.

By this distorted logic, professional women subscribe to the social convention that they can ‘buy Alpha'; that their credentials, financial and social status ought to be the deciding factor for men’s intimate estimations of them, and any man not abiding by these conditions is by definition “infantile”, has a “fragile ego” and is “threatened by successful women”.

Feminine Operative Social Conventions are the meta-hamster of the gestalt consciousness of the feminine imperative.

On the masculine side the problems are twofold. The first comes from men’s evolved subliminal understanding about how being a provider is his last, best, resort of securing a mate who will send his genes on to future generations. Once this capacity is removed, he becomes conscious of his vulnerability to the predations of his wife’s Hypergamy.

If men met their future wives when the women already were the bigger breadwinners, “they never have any problems later on,” Pierce said. “The problems are all coming in marriages where the guys are making more, they get married, then their pay slips (below their wives’ salaries).” The study was published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Since mass media is rooted in a fem-centric reality, we’re spared the gory details of women’s Hypergamic re-estimations of their husbands. Rather, we’re left to believe that it’s the husbands who have an inability to cope with their wives making more money (due to fragile egos remember?) and suffer from a masculine insecurity that’s making their cocks go soft. No mention is made of men’s now-impassable Hypergamic shit-tests women demand of men affecting their previously stable marriages.

For the majority of Beta men, their cow-eyed confidence and reliance on being able to at least provide an equal contribution to a woman’s wellbeing as part of his Beta-Game sexual strategy gets flushed down the toilet when she out earns him. For Beta men, men’s primary sexual market value is derived from performance – unfortunately Betas are beginning to be outperformed by women and their wives. Once that outperformance is actualized for women, only Alpha dominance defines men’s SMV since it’s the other remaining side of women’s Hypergamy and their pluralistic sexual strategy.

The Bought Alpha

The second masculine issue is the bought Alpha. When a woman is in fact capable of her own provisioning all that’s left wanting for her hypergamy is Alpha dominance. Most breadwinning women are condemned to being frustrated by this dynamic. The majority of elite earning women simply lack the feminine grace and physical appeal to attract this Alpha dominance. Fewer still have the capacity to surrender to that Alpha, but the upper 1% of elite earning women can, and they illustrate the dynamic here. I realize it’s an old article but have a quick read – Guys more likely to cheat on high-earning women.

In fact, men who were completely dependent on their partner’s income were five times more likely to cheat than men who contributed an equal amount of money to the relationship, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

You’d think such men wouldn’t want to risk their meal ticket. But lower-earning men may be self-medicating their inner macho guy, says Cornell University sociology graduate student Christin Munsch, who conducted the study.“Having multiple sexual partners may be an attempt to restore gender identity in response to these threats,” she writes. “In other words, for men, sex [outside their relationship] may be an attempt to compensate for feelings of inadequacy with respect to gender identity.”

Despite the masculine shaming threaded throughout the article, what’s not being addressed is women who make substantially more money, or all the money, in their relationships have flipped a dangerous gender script. As elite earners, women tend to want to pair off not with the the guy who’d otherwise be a loyal, respectable Beta provider under other conditions, but rather the men they feel they ‘deserve’. The provisioning part of their Hypergamy has been satisfied, so the visceral part is all that’s left wanting. Thus they gravitate to the Alpha cads they’re aroused by, and they ‘deserve’ by virtue of their earning ability and status. These women’s Game is a reflection of Beta men’s Game – they believe that their provisioning alone will be the lynchpin in keeping their spouse loyal.

An Alpha guy (like Jesse James from the article) grows tired of being his wife or girlfriend’s accessory, and as is the Alpha nature, he’s happy to have the financial backing to fund his infidelity. An inverse of this would be Tiger Woods’ marriage and his indulgences. The marriage becomes a means to an Alpha end (or a hinderance for Tiger), and our rich, empowered wife duplicitously loves and hates that her Man is so desired by other women, but can’t balance her Hypergamic nature any other way.


Artificial Joy

Of all the scenes in the Matrix, Cypher’s 30 pieces of silver moment here is the one that requires the most suspension of disbelief. Granted, it’s the Matrix, so you’re going in with a lot of suspended disbelief, and I understand Cypher’s Judas moment is central to the movie’s plot, but for as cerebral and philosophically rich as the Matrix is, this scene begs a lot of questions.

First we have to consider how long Cypher’s been cut away from the Matrix – 9 years. His experience of awakening, or something like it, we can presume was much like Neo’s. Shock, disbelief, denial, depression and finally acceptance. The experience Cypher and Neo, and anyone else so unplugged, would somewhat follow a predictable path, and thus the people doing the unplugging have pre-established programs to help those awakened adjust to a ‘real’ life.

What Cypher has here is 9 years of experiencing the harsh reality of the ‘real’. Although he understands it, he wants to forget it. He wants the comfort and bliss that being unconscious and ignorant in the Matrix makes possible for him.

The disbelief we have to suspend here is that the automatons of the Matrix will actually honor their end of the bargain and graciously wipe away all of his memories of being in the real world, to say nothing of actually improving Cypher’s ‘life’, such as it is, once he’s blissfully oblivious of the ‘real’. One would think that after 9 years of watching the Matrix ‘code and understanding how that system works Cypher wouldn’t have been so naive as to think that the system wouldn’t simply kill him once he’d betrayed Morpheus to it.

Still, the want for an escape from harsh realities is certainly an aspect of the human condition. We all have them and for the most part they’re harmless distractions to ease what we can bear of the real world. However, depending upon the personality and the severity of the need to escape, we can find ourselves preferring the fantasy to the reality. This is what can make harmless distractions into compulsive obsessions. It’s easy to on pick MMO games as an illustration, but the ‘addiction’ element of them stems from a personality that prefers the fantasy to the reality of its conditions.

Artificial Joy

Cypher is one such individual. He’s been rejected by Trinity – one of the only two women on his ship – in favor of the (at the time contextual) Alpha of a better looking and less creepy Neo. He resents Trinity’s attraction to Neo and spends his off hours watching encoded Matrix porn (not only a Buffer, but also an escape) and has a direct line to the only alcohol on the ship (courtesy of Dozer). Both of these classic male escapes, and many more just like them, are the characteristic remedy intended to cope with a reality that borders on insufferable. It’s almost prescient that this movie was written and released well before the rise of ubiquitous internet porn.

“If you entirely removed men’s access to porn and booze from society the male suicide rate would increase tenfold.”

I’ve read this comment on a couple of manosphere blogs in the past, and it’s almost a truism when you consider the most visceral of Buffers men turn to in order to escape their realities. Whether or not that guy is lost in his blue pill  mental jail cell or he feels destitute in the perceived  hopelessness of a cruel, but real, red pill existence he’s unprepared for, a man will always look for his escapes – and usually he gravitates, and fixates upon the ones that best satisfy what he’s unable to actualize.

On second thought, maybe we don’t need to suspend any disbelief with Cypher. Once we understand that condition and situation, and the abject lack of an ability to adress it, can drive someone to desperation, to hopeless suicide, acts of violence, to fanciful absorbing escapes, etc., ‘real’ naive beliefs and willful intellectual negligences seem of small consequence by comparison.

Reinsertion

I’m using Cypher’s character here today thanks to an enlightening post Athol Kay dropped last week. I disagree with his assertion here that red pill men need their occasional blue pill escapisms, but really only in how he’s applying terms. Athol sites this same video and character to illustrate how men have a desire (need?) to regress back into their former ‘magical thinking’ in order to cope with the reality our red pill, our Game awareness, our new ability to make sense of, and confront, our conditioning and the mechanics of fem-centrism now demands of Men.

My main objection is conflating to blue pill ignorance as some sort of escape that a Man might artificially enjoy from time to time in order to balance the harsh, and admittedly cruel truths his new awareness brings to him.

The trouble is, a lot of the Red Pill approach to life assumes a near telepathic assumption of negative intentions in others. Is it often right? Sure it is. But it’s almost impossible to live happily if you are endlessly paranoid and jaded about the intentions of everyone around you. If every woman is a hot mess of whorish desire and nothing else but a lying cunt of a hamster justifying her Alpha male sperm seeking… well it gets tiring being on edge after a while. Likewise every man is a third wheel seeking an opportunity and plots behind your back, pumping you for information about your woman, seeking to make a run into the endzone the moment you blink too slowly.

I read versions of this breakdown from a lot of guys who resist the idea of a red pill or a Game awareness altogether when it’s first presented to them and they acknowledge the basics of it. I addressed this in The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill and Bitter Misogynists, but the simple version is that what’s being outlined for red pill men seems too hopelessly nihilistic to actually be true. It sounds so paranoid and attention consuming that it can’t actually be.

From The Bitter Taste of the Red Pill:

The truth will set you free, but it doesn’t make truth hurt any less, nor does it make truth any prettier, and it certainly doesn’t absolve you of the responsibilities that truth requires. One of the biggest obstacles guys face in unplugging is accepting the hard truths that Game forces upon them. Among these is bearing the burden of realizing what you’ve been conditioned to believe for so long were comfortable ideals and loving expectations are really liabilities. Call them lies if you want, but there’s a certain hopeless nihilism that accompanies categorizing what really amounts to a system that you are now cut away from. It is not that you’re hopeless, it’s that you lack the insight at this point to see that you can create hope in a new system – one in which you have more direct control over.

Little Lies

The reason most men experience this initial hopelessness is because their only prior frame of reference for the way life works up until then has been that of a blue pill existence. It’s a very difficult aspect of killing the Beta and relearning how to exist in a red pill awareness – most men either reject it in wholesale denial or they turn paranoid and see the signs of the real intent or the underlying motivations for every action a woman or man presents them with as per Athol’s example.

The trouble this presents is one of switching a man’s paradigm from blue pill to red pill. Many transitioning guys tell me how impossible it is to “keep up the act” that they believe a red pill awareness requires of them. They believe so because their operative mindset, the direction they think will work best for them, are still based on the rules and mental framework of their former blue pill existence.

In the blue pill Matrix, everything was set for them, but with a red pill awareness comes the responsibility of doing things for themselves. They’re unprepared and cut away from a comforting system, but they don’t know what to do with that freedom. They understand that the blue pill is really a complex series of little lies meant to soften painful truths, and that they’d tell themselves more little lies to comfort themselves when those truths’ consequences hurt them, but now they know better. They have only themselves to blame for allowing the speeding, red pill train they knew was coming to flatten them. For one so unprepared it seems impossible to avoid.

Internalization

NEO: So what’re you trying to tell me, that I can dodge bullets?

MORPHEUS: No Neo, what I’m trying to tell you is that when you’re ready, you wont have to.

The problem lies in the assumption that Red Pill awareness is a consuming force in a Man’s life that demands his constant effort and vigilance to defend himself against.

Once this awareness is internalized and becomes a part of a Man’s personality there is no vigilance, just awareness. There is a subconscious understanding of the order of things from a red pill perspective, but that doesn’t mean I suspect the female bank teller I’m making a deposit with is ready to rob me blind the moment I turn to walk out the door.

Neil Strauss hinted at ‘social robots’ in The Game; guys who were nothing but Game all the time and were unable to make real emotional connections. I would argue just the opposite. The real danger inherent in Game and Red Pill awareness is a man using it to fulfill his former blue pill idealisms – that does require a constant effort.

A healthy red pill awareness requires not only a Man’s reassessment and recreation of himself, but also that he abandon his former blue pill paradigm and learn to live in a new, positive, red pill paradigm. It seems like a daunting task when you first come to terms with it, but ultimately your awareness becomes an internalized part of who you are. You can allow that to consume you with a paranoia  rooted in your former blue pill frame, or you can learn to create hope in a new system – one that you not only have more control over, but one that requires you to assume that control.

Don’t wish it were easier, wish you were better. Easier is telling yourself that you actually need the little lies the blue pill provides. Easier is is thinking the blue pill is the sugar that helps the medicine go down. Better is recreating a new, positively masculine, direction for yourself based on the awareness and the opportunity that the red pill provides and requires of you.

*Before I finish here I want to say that this post was in no way a ‘take down’ of Athol’s article. I have nothing but respect for the guy and count him as a valuable peer and colleague. His work with MMSL is a much needed resource in the manosphere, and I can’t say enough good things about his efforts. I simple disagree with his take on a need for blue pill illusion.


He’s Special

special

Sunshine Mary had an interesting insight about some of my analysis of Soft Dread:

It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.

Although it seems mercenary, there is some truth to that. However, we are grateful because our husbands have saved us from spinsterhood. So it’s not a “rather than” situation, it’s that we are grateful to him because of what he has done…it’s both the who and the why. I wouldn’t have wanted to be saved from spinsterhood by just any man, ya know?

Mary knows I love her, and this is in no way a cut on her, but here’s a new item to add to the Hypergamy doesn’t care list:

Hypergamy doesn’t care about who you are, it only cares about what you are.

Your awesome personality, charm and any number of ingratiating personal traits are all perks – value added – that contribute to what you might consider Relational Equity, but as we’ve already observed, Hypergamy doesn’t care about Relational Equity. The problem with Mary’s estimation here is she hasn’t considered women’s Hypergamic capacity to make any man into a special man so long as he meets her Hypergamic criteria.

Chick Logic

In the past I’ve described the female sexual strategy as schizophrenic, but what it really is is pluralistic. All the jokes you read as 4Chan memes about ‘chick logic’ are only funny because we all have an intrinsic, largely unspoken, understanding of this sexual pluralism. The female sexual response is characterized by a dual nature, Alpha fucks and Beta bucks.

That’s the simplistic, distilled version ready for easy consumption and understanding, but the feminine sexual response is much more detailed on an individual level, and much more significant on a social level than just this jargon. Every stimulus bearing on the feminine, from how she’ll explain her girl’s night out to her LTR Beta, to how women in the workplace can rejigger legislature to create a society directed by the feminine imperative, all come back to the Alpha fucks / Beta bucks equation for optimizing Hypergamy.

Alpha fucks and Beta bucks is literally a biological imperative for women. I wrote in Balancing Sexual Pluralism about this pluralism describing the desire for that perfect balance of Alpha sexuality when ovulatory impulse predisposes women to it, as well as Beta comfort and security when her cycle predisposes her to it. This isn’t just my speculations, it’s a scientifically documented phenomenon common to all women. Yes, in this instance, all women are like this. It is literally in their DNA.

Hypergamy is the constant striving for an optimization of a woman’s sexual plurality. Although there may be behavioral permutations that women will use to achieve it, or the imitation of it, the underlying motivation of Hypergamy is the same for all women. It’s a hard-coded psychological survival script that’s benefitted the human race since our tribalist beginnings.

The War Brides Effect

Recently 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 10 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?

As it applies to women, I think Stockholm Syndrome is a convenient term for psychology to a give a name to what really amounts to adaptive hypergamy. Granted, due to media sensationalism we may not hear about incidents where men have been taken captive for as long, but this identifying with one’s captor is far more prevalent in women than men.

Primarily I attribute this to the War Bride effect, wherein evolution selected-for women with a psychological facility to adapt to a new dominant male captor as a species-beneficial survival trait. Have a read of War Brides for the full theory, but the short version is essentially this: in early tribal societies, women evolved a capacity to accept new out-tribe (presumptively Alpha) conquering men as their masters after the fathers of their children were killed or otherwise defeated and neutralized.

This is not unfounded historically. There are documented tribal traditions in cross-culture societies where it was not only accepted, but expected of a man who’d defeated another in a challenge to assume responsibility of the slain man’s children and wife(ves). In terms of inter-tribal warring, it was common practice for the conquering tribe’s men to take (and often rape) the defeated tribe’s women. Another, more humane, version of this War Bride effect is found in Old Testament Jewish law where a dead man’s brother was expected to take his wife to bear children irrespective of the woman’s interest.

I originally went into detail in War Brides about this dynamic due to men’s observing women’s ease of transitioning romantically from one lover to another. That facility is a vestige of a psychology evolved to ensure Hypergamy is optimized with the best mate a woman’s environment (and her own physical conditions for attraction) will allow her. More often than not, in our evolutionary past, a woman’s conditions and environment were not of her own choosing, thus psychological contingencies had to evolve in order for women to maintain a mental and emotional dissonance while still ensuring as Hypergamously optimal a situation as she could.

Women lacking the mental capacity for selective, impersonal indifference to men would’ve been selected-out, either by debilitating emotional breakdown or by her new captor’s disregard for her provisioning. We can draw modern day parallels to the latter situation when we hear about how a woman might divorce her previous Beta provider husband for an Alpha lover only to regret having done so. It’s not the emotional consideration she regrets, but rather the loss of provisioning when her Alpha pumps and dumps her. Hypergamy is sated from one side of her sexual pluralism (Alpha fucks), only to create a deficit on the other side (Beta bucks).

War Brides vs. Alpha Widows

Where all this gets interesting is in considering the Alpha Widow dynamic;

 These are the Alpha Widows – women so significantly impacted by a former Alpha (or perceptually so) lover that she’s left with an emotional imprint that even the most dutiful, loving beta-provider can never compete with. A woman doesn’t have to have been an archetypal slut in order to have difficulty in pair bonded monogamy.

On the surface of it, it may appear that the Alpha Widow dynamic contradicts the War Brides dynamic, but if we dig deeper we find that they are both mutually reinforcing principles, and both are expressions of Hypergamy attempting solve the problem of women’s plural sexual strategy.

It is actually a woman’s capacity for selective indifference that predisposes her to an Alpha Widow state because the Alpha(s) she “can’t get over” imprinted an idealized state of an optimized Hypergamy for her. So the guy she banged in high school or college (the one with enough Alpha impression to take her virginity) is the idealization she harbors while married to the dutiful Beta. Even the abusive lout that a battered wife keeps returning to and refuses to press charges on, still represents that Hypergamous ideal to her.

Women will pine for the most significant Alpha they’ve experienced in life. It’s not who the Alpha was it was what he represented to her in terms of an idealized Hypergamy. That’s not to delegitimize women’s genuine feelings of love, respect and devotion for that Man, but it is to say that all of those feelings are consequences of her impression of an idealized Hypergamy.

There’s a lot being made about how women should or shouldn’t settle for ‘Mr. Good Enough’ before it’s too late. Granted, much of women’s indignation about settling for less than they deserve stems from an overly exaggerated appreciation of their true (and decaying) SMV courtesy of social media and social conventions intended to alleviate the anxiety of the approaching Wall. However, the underlying psychology of that indignation is rooted in women being forced to acknowledge that they’ve reached a point in their lives where they can no longer achieve an idealized Hypergamy.

So the stress responses are social variations of “Don’t tell me I can’t have it all”, “I deserve better than ‘good enough'” or, “Look at (insert aging celebrity’s name), she’s proof that you don’t have to settle.” All of these are pleas for a recognition of an imperfect ability to balance her sexual pluralism.


Soft Dread

soft-dread

 

In the past I’ve covered in various detail the utility of instilling dread in a woman both pre and post monogamy. It’s been one of the more contentious principles I’ve endorsed, with women tending to revile me for having brought men to the awareness of dread’s uses, and men concurring with, but often hesitant in applying dread for fear of the backlash for having used dread conspicuously.

In Dread Games I made an attempt to clear up the real inevitability of dread in any average relationship. Dread is going to be a factor in any relationship due to the Cardinal Rule of Relationships:

In any relationship, the one with the most power is the one who cares the least.

As Roissy and many legitimate psychologists will tell you, the most secure relationships generally result from about a 1-2 point SMV imbalance favoring the Man in the relationship. In this imbalance, the actual strength  of that secure feminine attachment to the man (both in and out of a monogamous commitment) can be expressed as a soft, or passive form of dread. This expression of dread is still rooted in a woman’s imagination of emotional, physical and provisional loss, but just as the application of that dread is passive, so too is a woman’s progressive realization of that dread.

Soft Dread

Mrs. Tomassi and I were recently talking with a woman of about 49. She’s the ever-present front desk host at our gym and a casual acquaintance and friend. She’s not particularly unattractive for her age, reasonably good shape from a body perspective – I can tell she used to enjoy a lot of male attention in her 20s and maybe 30’s – but now just this side of 50 she’s moved not so much into a regret stage, but rather a hopeful sense of well post-Wall self-remorse. That might sound odd, but she’s at least optimistic about her ‘chances’ of getting with a “good man” in the near future.

She’s quite upfront and honest about the Alpha Bad Boy Jerks she’s dated, married one and then divorced from her past. In fact she’s one of the more lucid women I’ve encountered about her present state and how she came to it. Although she’s the typical result of a hypergamous life prolonged past the “eating her cake too” phase, she owns her mistakes.

Although we generally hit Gold’s at different times, occasionally  the wife and I go together in the mornings. It was on one of these mornings, and our friend at the counter stopped us to say,

“I love you guys, I really do. I see a lot of people pass through here but when I see you both together it gives me hope that I can have a good relationship like you two. You’re such a team, I really hope I can meet a guy I can connect with like that.”

We were on our way out, and she always has something else to say about her personal life so, while I guess I was somewhat flattered, I didn’t pay it much mind. That is until our ride back home when Mrs. Tomassi looked me square in the face and said, “I am so glad I didn’t end up like that!” I was actually kind of surprised at the tone of her voice. “Thank God that’s not me, how horrible to be in that position at her age.” I nodded my head because I knew she was expecting my usually analyzations of post-Wall women and the beds they make. Then, with a hint of a tear in her eye, she gave me one of the best compliments I’ve ever heard from her, “I hope Bebé finds and marries a Man just like you.”

That made me feel really good, and what I’m about to type here sound really shitty. After not a small swell of pride, I thought, while it’s nice to be appreciated in this respect, would this realization have come without the influence of our friend and her state of life?

You see, what I experienced that morning was a sort of de fact association of social proof. Granted, I’m not taking anything away from the love and solidity upon which my marriage and our relationship is founded on, but was I just the right guy in the right place for this realization to come to awareness? What I had just participated in was a form of soft dread. A dread that needs no emphasis or prompting from a Man, simply the occasion for it to come to the surface to be actualized.

When a Man’s status is long established it’s easy to take his qualities for granted by women. It takes another woman’s lack to bring that status into focus for her. In the same vein that women will pre-approve or pre-qualify you for another woman’s intimacy, likewise the personal state of other women will serve as a benchmark of social proof for a Man’s wife or LTR. I realize this has the potential to cut the other way for women who are more well off than others, but the dynamic is real. I’ve written in the past that women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices Men must make to facilitate their feminine reality, but if they ever come close to this appreciation it’s only at the prompting of women outside the relationship who can recognize it in the Men committed to other women.

Progressive Dread

The admittedly very rough graph I created to illustrate the contemporary sexual marketplace (SMP) is almost a manosphere link staple now. However, I’m going to reuse it once more here to illustrate another point:

Print

When I wrote Navigating the SMP it was in response to a need for visualization of how men and women’s respective sexual market value (SMV) differentiate at different phases of their lives. Using this model it’s not too far a stretch to illustrate how dread plays a factor in women’s self, and relational awareness.

At their SMV peak, adjusting for the mean average, women’s potential for experiencing dread is as low as it will be in a lifetime. During this phase the potential for replacing a respective mate (or STR lover) is almost a nonissue. Even in emotionally invested relationships during this phase, the subliminal presence of a basic, unprompted, dread of loss is pushed into unawareness for women.

That dread of loss is replaced with the dread of insecurity as a woman ages toward the Wall. Before I continue here, it’s important to remember that security comes in many different forms – financial, emotional, psychological, spiritual and even self-esteem play a part in the totality of women’s security needs.

During the height of a woman’s SMV, men are scarcely aware of their potential value to a woman in the long term. Men’s recognition of dread is much more heightened when a woman’s SMV is peaking, while his is on a slow ascendency toward his late 20’s and early 30’s. He doesn’t want to miss his “dream girl” and she doesn’t want to sell herself short in the hypergamy gamble she’s playing.

As a woman ages to the Wall and beyond, and while a Man’s SMV accumulates into his 30’s, the role soft dread plays in the relationship is reversed. As women’s primary physical attraction decays, the subliminal dread of loss, and an ever decreasing ability to recreate her security, increases in her psyche. It may not be on the surface of her awareness, but there will be more reminders of her state with each passing year.

It seems unduly cruel to remind women of this dread; that’s not my intent with today’s post. In fact, just because I’m aware of the subtle reminders of soft dread women experience, I may play my relationship Game with a bit more sensitivity. That being the case, there’s no ignoring the reality of this dynamic and the utility it represents for a man aware of the state of women in various phases of their lives.

When I wrote Navigating the SMP the operative intent behind it was to make men more conscious of the predictability of women’s motives and behaviors at various phases of life – and plan their Game according to the signs they were seeing. In the case of soft dread, this realization may at first come as a hint of appreciation to the Man who’s dutifully persevered through his woman’s dominant frame for most of his LTR  Marriage. It may come as a comfort for a guy who’s unused to sentimental declarations of appreciation, but it’s important to remember the why in that declaration, rather than the who in that declaration.


Remove the Man

remove

A little over two weeks ago Washington state Governor Jay Inslee signed off on the final installment of a six-year effort to make language in the state’s copious laws gender-neutral. The sponsor of the bill, Senator Jeannie Kohl-Welles’ (hyphenated surname noted) reasoning for initiating the six-year endeavor was,

“It brings us to modern times, to contemporary times, why should we have in statute anything that could be viewed as biased or stereotypical or reflecting any discrimination?”

Thus words such as ‘freshmen’, ‘fireman’, ‘fisherman’ and even ‘penmanship’ are neutralized to ‘first year student’, ‘fireperson’, ‘fisher’ and ‘writing skill’. Perhaps the easiest way to grasp the process the committee used in their six-year effort is to presume that any noun or verb with the successive letters of ‘m-a-n’ in its syntax was replaced with ‘person’ or a substitution for a term that excluded the offending ‘m-a-n’ letters.

This hasn’t been the only effort to geld the English language under the guise of a want for avoiding legal repercussions. The University of North Carolina has initiated a similar effort in their school’s by-laws. Kent Law, Marquette and virtually every state college in the union, while not mandating the ‘manless’ language, has made efforts to encourage linguistic androgyny.

The Washington state initiative is really just the next predictable progression in this gelding, however the six-year effort represents something more endemically hostile; the Feminine Imperative, in its unconsolable insecurity, would reengineer the very language society uses in order to feel more secure.

Now granted, this is English, the second most commonly spoken language in the world, but in order to fully appreciate the scope of the Feminine Imperative and the lengths to which it will go unhindered to assuage the need for feminine-security, a red-pill man has to recognize the importance language represents to the human race as well as the removal of male, not masculine, influence from that language.

In all Latin-based languages there are gender associations with definitive articles. Nouns (and many adjectives) are specifically feminine or masculine as part of their intrinsic qualities. In Spanish ‘La Casa’, the home, is a feminine association. ‘El Toro’, the bull, is a masculine association. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of a Latin-based language understands that millennia ago the Latin culture found gender differentiation so important that it attached gender associations to the words, written and spoken, that represented the ideas and articles each word meant.

This might seem like a remedial review of language and society, but it’s important to understand what it is the Feminine Imperative hopes to undo, and the magnitude of its insecurities. The six-year effort of gender-abridgment in the Washington state law is really an illustration of the lengths to which the Feminine Imperative would reengineer society; from the very foundations of human communication, language, by eliminating masculine associations with any article or quality. The Feminine Imperative, that is dependent upon men being Men when convenient, simultaneously makes herculean efforts to remove men from its idealized environment and society.

Be a Man

There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of passage into manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and masculine respect. In Latin cultures a young woman becomes a woman on here quinceñera – her fifteenth birthday. Jewish boys have a Bar Mitzvah, certain Native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there’s a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it – we don’t respect Manhood enough to define what’s expected and when that adult, masculine respect is due.

A lot has been written on this blog and many others about the ceaseless efforts of the feminine to marginalize and ridicule anything masculine. It’s easy to find consistent examples of this in the past 50 years of popular media, movies, TV sit-coms, music, etc. While masculinity is ridiculed, there’s more to it than this. It’s not simple masculine ridicule, because the same masculine attributes and qualities that make women ‘strong’ are the same that make men strong. The difference is in the application – it wasn’t enough to implant the seeds of masculine self-doubt into men, the Feminine Imperative had to make men, not necessarily masculinity, the problem to be solved.

In all of the examples of masculine gender reversal in popular culture, men are the unique problem, to which only women have the resources, wisdom and intuition to correct. The men of today are characterized as the Lucy Ricardos of the 50’s, requiring women’s guidance to avoid, often mutually destructive, disasters. However, the key to solving those problems, characterized as uniquely male, still require masculine-associated, mindsets, skills and applications.

Guys vs. Men

I was participating in a conversation just recently with a young woman of 26 and a young man of 18. The conversation itself wasn’t important, but at one point the young man referred to himself as a ‘Man’. He said something to the effect of, “Well I’m a man, and men do,..” At the word ‘man’ she cut him off with the unconscious snigger that’s resulted from years of feminine ridicule conditioning. Just the mention of a man self-referencing as a “man” is enough to inspire feminine ridicule. It’s laughable for a man to consider himself a man.

This exchange got me to wondering about the turning point at which I began to self-reference as a “Man”. In the face of a constant conditioned ridicule, it’s almost an uncomfortable recognition to distinguish yourself as a Man. It’s too easy to just think of yourself as a ‘guy’ and never be so presumptuous as to insist upon your manhood. In girl-world, to claim to be a Man is to admit to arrogance – it’s to embrace a flawed nature.

It’s important to note here that in embracing your status as a Man, instead of ‘just a guy’, you are passing a meta-shit test. By embracing self-referenced manhood, you are rejecting what a world aligned against you would like you to believe about yourself. You’re endorsing yourself as a Man with self-assurance despite the self-doubt the Feminine Imperative relies upon men believing about themselves, masculinity and the dubious state of manhood as a whole. By flagrantly referring to yourself as a Man you are passing the meta-shit test – you’re overtly stating you’re a Man, but you you’re covertly stating “I Just Get It.”

Remove the Man

As I addressed earlier, the Feminine Imperative perceives your Manhood as a Threat. By endorsing yourself as a Man, on some level, whether you’re cognizant of it or not, you’re alluding that you have an inkling of your own personal value as a Man. You’re expressing  a self-awareness that is both attractive and terrorizing for women, but due to the constant influence of feminine primacy you’re perceived as arrogant, self-serving and prideful. Even in the most innocuous context, insisting upon your status as a Man is inherently sexist to a world defined by the Feminine Imperative.

But the imperative needs masculinity. To insure its (temporary) satisfaction of security a masculine element is required. Strength, confidence, determination, a capacity for risk taking, dominance and the comfort that women naturally derive from those masculine attributes are necessities of a healthy, secure, existence for women and the feminine.

However, brutish, ridiculous and stupid men can’t be trusted to universally provide this masculine security that every woman deserves irrespective of attractiveness or merit according to the Feminine Imperative. So Men must be removed from masculinity.

No longer are Men allowed a monopoly on masculinity. Domineering women as a default status in heterosexual relationships pushes masculinity into her domain. Dominant masculine partners in sexually fluid relationships are similarly, unironically, re-characterized.

These are the easy examples. Volumes have been written in the manopshere about how feminine-primary government assumes the masculine providership role in modern relationships, thus freeing an already unhindered hypergamy even more so, but the effort to remove the Man goes far beyond this obvious institution. The fundamental restructuring of gender reference in our very language – as illustrated by the Washington state legislature – attempts to, literally, remove the Man from the equation.

Masculine Security

I can remember an instance at a former workplace where some coworkers were organizing a team to run in a Breast Cancer awareness walk/run. At one point a particularly mangina coworker suggested we all wear the prerequisite pink color at the event, and needless to say I arrived in a black T-Shirt amongst a sea of pink. The predictable accusation of my sexual security came up: “What, aren’t you secure enough in your manhood to wear pink?…herp..derp!” to which I answered “I’m secure enough in my Manhood not to wear pink.”

What the mangina was obliviously parroting back is the same social tool that’s been used by the Feminine Imperative for the past 60 years; inspire self-doubt in male-specific masculinity. By making compliance with the Feminine Imperative a qualification of masculinity, men assign the power to define masculinity to the Feminine Imperative. My answer to him was simply taking that power of definition back into a male-controlled frame – “I’ll tell you what manhood is, your grasp of manhood doesn’t qualify you to tell me.”

This power of defining the masculine isn’t limited just to snarky, subconscious referencing; it’s simply one aspect of a greater effort to remove men from masculinity. While the efforts of certain women bloggers and psychologists (both within and without the manosphere) to build better betas seems ennobling to white knights, the unifying purpose behind their efforts is really one of portioning or rationing masculine authority to men in as convenient a way as would satisfy their immediate needs for those masculine aspects. Be Alpha as needed, but beta for the greater part so as to allow for fem-masculine dominance and primacy.

I’ve explained this previously as the Male Catch 22, but it’s important to understand that this Catch isn’t some unfortunate byproduct of male inheritance; it’s a careful, calculated feminine social dynamic with the latent purpose of making men accountable for masculine responsibilities while simultaneously making them shamed and guilty of ‘male privilege’ when that masculinity conflicts with the dictates of the Feminine Imperative. That’s the crux of the dynamic, but the mechanics of it are still rooted in specifically male masculine self-doubt.

For the Feminine Imperative to sustain itself men can never be trusted with masculinity, solution: remove men from being the definers of masculinity and apportion them only enough authority of it that would benefit the Feminine Imperative as necessary.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,372 other followers