Author Archives: Rollo Tomassi

Show and Tell

*scroll slowly

 

Elle

Imagine you’re at a casual bar and grill. Not a club with pulsing music and overdone HB7′s, but a cool place to hang out and bullshit with friends. There’s a good bar, good food, maybe pool tables and you’re with your regular social circle, but there’s also other groups of people in their own social circles. Very casual, nothing pretentious, you’re in your element and open to the potential for meeting a new girl.

Then this girl is introduced to you by a mutual girl-friend:

girl_1a

Her name is Elle and she’s pretty down to earth, but has a “fun side” to her personality. She wants to shoot pool with you, and after a just a short while you number close closer her. After your 2nd date you f-close and wake up in the morning to what she looks like in a different environment:

girl_1b

Still, not bad. She looks good sans makeup, and helps you get past the morning breath. Minus the make up she loses maybe an SMV point.

Rilee

You meet Rilee at dance club while sarging with four of your boys. She’s hot – body’s tight, has a great smile, flirtatious and while she gives off IOIs you can read with ease you still need tight game since she’s an HB8.5 in a club full of mid 7′s:

Rilee1

Rilee also has a “fun side” but she’s more direct about it than sweet little Elle. While you don’t get a same night lay (SNL) you do get after it on your first ‘real date’. And in the morning you see the ‘real’ Rilee:

Rilee2

You’re beginning to wonder if she had a fake ID to get in the club, and now you’re on the hook for statutory rape. It’s all good though. Also not bad, but she loses maybe 1-2 points considering her first impression.

Zarina

You meet Zarina at local gig your friend’s band is playing at. She’s kind of a wild child, also has a “fun side”, but requires minimal game. Two hours after the show she’s dry humping you in the car. Logistics don’t work out for a SNL, but the Saturday night after the gig she’s riding you to glory:

Zarina1

Zarina doesn’t spend the night so you never get a look at her in the morning, but you happen to run into her coming out of the local Game Stop with the most recent version of Halo:

Zarina2

Woah,..if she hadn’t been wearing the same shirt she wore (briefly) on that Saturday you wouldn’t have know it was the same girl. This is easily a 2 point conversion.

Anikka

Anikka is a rare beauty you met in Estonia while you were writing pick-up guides for guys looking to get laid abroad. She was a difficult notch – no fast times at DC high with Anikka, you had to work your Game for every contingency with her. You learned her language just for the privilege to turn her out.

Anikka1

Your efforts would not go unrewarded, Anikka is indeed a rare talent and you discover her “fun side” after investing more game than you ever thought was within you. After a night of Retzina wine and unmatched sex you awaken to Anikka who has just hung up the phone with her mother after telling her of your impending wedding arrangements:

Anikka2

Yaaagh,..a solid 2-3 point drop!

If you’d like to learn about all these girl’s (and more) “fun side” head on over to this link.

Granted I’m having some much needed fun with this, but the grain of seriousness in it is understanding the bigger picture of how what our perceptions of women are when our familiarity with them isn’t what it was when you met them. Next to posts about the importance of men’s looks and what the definition of Alpha should be, defining what constitutes the qualities an HB9 should have is the most contentious. I’m not saying that (most) of these women are particularly homely sans makeup, but there is a marked drop in SMV potential.

I understand the “well duh? Rollo” factor here, but do you see the woman behind the foundation and mascara when you’re deciding whether she’s worth your tightest Game? Bear in mind, these women are porn stars, would you think they were capable of being so if you saw them with little or no make up eating a burrito supreme at Taco Bell?


Hail to the V

I’m not sure if Mark Minter had plans to submit his essay of a comment on Hypergamy Synthesis to Return of Kings or some other manosphere collective blog, but I felt it was too important a post to allow it to slip into the obscurity of a mere comment thread. Yes, it’s long, but it has to be and it’s well worth the read. Set aside half an hour to read it through in one go. It’s really not as cerebral as you might expect and very ‘illuminating’ to say the least.

In several posts and on various other blogger’s comment threads I’ve debated that the social paradigms of chivalry and feminism are cultural engineerings of the feminine imperative. I delved into the history of chivalry in The Feminine Imperative – Circa 1300 and made my best attempt to outline the history of chivalry, the feminine bastardization of it and how it was the cultural parallel and precursor to feminism. Naturally the more romantic leaning of my critics chose to keep their noses in their holy books and epic poems rather than take the time to consider the historical underpinnings of what we now consider chivalry and monogamous romantic love.

So it pleases me beyond what I think Mark will appreciate to have him provide such an in depth and insightful detailing of the history of courtly love and how it influences our social consciousness, our gender expectations, even the frustrations we experience in today’s gender landscape.

________________________________________________

I continue to explore the concepts of things I learned at this blog. I am bouncing around sporadically from idea to idea and am having trouble staying focused on any one idea. But I keep getting pulled as much as being due to any lack of mental discipline.

I was searching for a study about the lack of congruence and dissonance between physical indicators of arousal in women and their mental perception of arousal. The whole Testosterone thing drving women’s sexual choices.

I was actually searching for “Chimpanzee Porn” because the article I was looking for used it. The researcher had imposed the sound of Bobono monkeys over the visuals of Chimpanzees having sex because they were more “vocal” during sex and the researcher noted that women display measured physical arousal even though they didn’t recognize being aroused.

And one of links in the search phrase I was using came back with this imbedded in the text:

“Cultural historians believe that romantic love was created sometime in the 14th century”.

Google is the most wonderful thing ever created by men. How this linked got included with a search phrase on “Chimpanzee Porn” is a particularly unique result that would prove it relevant only to my particular “Googling” habits. But I guess Sergei felt I needed to see it. And I did.

OK, we moved down this line of thought at some point on Rational Male a few months ago in the discussion of the beginnings of “chivalry”, so I bit on the link that came up.

The link stated that the idea of “Romantic Love” was created by troubadours in verses by the idea of “Courtly Love” that arose in its beginnings the the end of the 12th century. So I started going back,back,back,back, back (-Chris Berman) and I found this:

http://kalpen.myweb.uga.edu/Capellanus.pdf

The book is important. The foreword by John Jay Perry was written in 1941. The title of this book is “The Art of Courtly Love” but it is actually a Victorian Era title imposed on the work that has several other different titles as a function of the era when the translation was performed, country where the translator lived, and particular social attitudes prevalent when and where the translator produced the translation. I think the “Romantic Era” was when these ideas of “courtly love” finally percolated up into mainstream thought, well, actually women’s mainstream thought, and defined love as we believe it be today, or at least defined it as women wish that definition to be imposed on men.

The title I generally use is “Treatise on Love”. Andreas Capellenus was the Chaplain of Countess Marie, and the preface goes into all of this history and I don’t want to get it into it. Read it.

It is the seminal work on the subject and there is no earlier work by a European. There is reference to Ibn Hazm, an Islamic writer from Spain, who began to define the idea of “love” in Islamic cultures. It went through a series of other writers in the 13th century and orally communicated through verse and song during the 14th century and made its way into the consciousness of western thought from the 14th century on.

The key thing is that these Troubadours were not some “traveling band” singing for their supper. Maybe later, but at this time, they were major nobles, from both the nobility and the higher noble classes. The first major one referenced was Duke William of Aquitaine, who was Marie’s grandfather. These were important people of the time. This would maybe be like, God forbid, Senator Harry Reid, breaking into a song after dinner about the importance of passing spending bills to ease the particular issues about the “sequester” that are key issues to Democrats or Ben Bernake letting loose about the Quantitative Easing. Ok, maybe not exactly.

The issue at the time, was that, as the historians state, that “Love as we know it did not exist. Marriage was as much as about land and politics as anything else”. It was said you “Married a fiefdom and a wife got thrown in the bargain”. Imagine a time where firelight and sunlight were practically the only light, when people rarely traveled more than 12 miles from their place of birth, when nothing, and I mean nothing, changed. The major cathedral built in Nimes took 38 generations to complete. The skyline never changed, towns remained the same. There were no books. None. All knowledge was conveyed orally and generally died with a person. The only cultural conditioning was what you got by watching the people you saw. And you saw very few people. Even at the peasant level, most marriages were the tossing together of two available young people, and that was that. But particularly at the noble level, all marriages were entirely based on practical considerations and nothing to do with “love” as we know it.

And the major church writers the time, just skewered women. The preface named several, and while I can’t find actual text of the writers specific to women, Bernard de Morlaix, John of Salisbury, I can find overall references to what they said about morality in general. They were a group that very much about self control. And it was thought that due to the “wickedness” of women, it was probably superior to remain a virgin. And thus the idea of the “celibate” priest was born. He could not be “godly”, and should be suspect, if he allowed himself to come under the temptation of women.These guys were definitely the “Red Pill” writers of the time. The general idea was not so much that sex was bad, but women were so bad, and sex was lure, the hook, so they damned sex as a means to keep men from getting ensnared in the traps and wickedness that women lay for men. And the thought has a little bit of merit, I must say.

So, think about this. The men in power at the time, saw some of the stuff we see, and they gave a huge “thumbs down” on women. Huge.

Now, heading into the second 500 years of Christianity, throw a “rubbing elbows” with Moslems in Spain, and this idea of “love” starts to percolate about, sort of this “counter-culture” idea of the time. It did not exist at all before in European culture, this idea of “soul mates” and “intertwined” spirits and “the ennobling qualities of love”, love as the be all and end all, the very reason to live.

And it was made up.

By women. Duh?

So there were moments, during this period 1170-1250 were in certain places the women got control. It the case of this Marie, she got control of this region “Troyes” in southern France when her son was named to be noble over the region and he was 11 years old. So she accompanied him down there and was the defacto “regent” during his “minority”. Her husband became King while she was down there. So this was a woman of major influence. And her sister was married to someone that also became King of someplace else. Their mother had been both Queen of France and then Queen of England after she divorced the King of France. This was a powerful woman who got what she wanted. And two of the chief architects of “love” were her two daughters, who married extremely high status men.

The same thing happened at the same time in about 3 other major places in the area, and these women, began to “flirt: with idea of “Courtly Love”. Flirt maybe is a little weak of word. But the general idea of most writers about the theme is that they “Proposed it as countervailing religion or thought to Christianity.” Christianity had so vilified women during the past 200 years, and this “love” stuff was really one of the first “feminisms”.

And near I am can tell, it was literally the birth of the Feminine Imperative. At least, the birth of the version that we know today.

The general idea was this.

“Women are the love. Women give praise to men and the power of that praise is the driving motivator of men. All good things that men do are only done in the true spirit of love to earn the right to the love that the woman confers to the men. Women define what is good. Women confer status on men by allowing them to receive the love they receive from women as a result of high character and accomplishment”.

Sound familiar.

So that was why some “Sir Goodguy” white knight would tie the scarf of the woman around his neck during some contest. It was his sign to her that he was doing this brave dead for her love and his recognition that she saw him as good and worthy.

They actually created these things called “The Court of Love”. And these men and women, and you can imagine the men in those courts were the 12th or 13th century equivalents of Manginas, would literally “rule” on love. They would debate questions, actions, and then determine is an act was good or bad and then that further defined “love”. Remember again, this was not idle chit chat after dinner. These were the major movers and shakers of the time. This was the court that would go on to exert cultural and intellectual control over Europe until 1914. And really even later than that. For nearly 1000 years, the French held sway in everything and Paris was the center of the world. Except at this time, this part of France, the south was the big deal.

One example I saw was letter written by a man that said, he and a woman were having heated discussion of two points, (1) Can true love exists in a marriage. (2) Can there be jealousy between the married partners. The Countess, the Queen of Love, at that time wrote back and said “No, love cannot exist in a marriage. Love is freely given and asks for nothing in return. Marriage is a contract of duties. So there is no love in a marriage. And Jealousy is a prerequisite of love and since only lovers could be jealous and since married people were not lovers, then their could be no jealousy in a marriage. ” And that was that. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Love had issued a ruling. And its weight was everything.

And needless to say, it was a mighty convenient development for women that were traded off into marriage as pawns attached to land. So it conferred the key power of social definition and the final say of what is good in men, and good in society, and that women should and will be the definers, and the arbiters, and the judges of all of that.

The translators, and this particular author John Jay Parry, mention that was nothing particularly distinguishing about Andreas Capellanus that would make it seem like he was the person to end up as this great literary figure that wrote a work that is “One of those capital works that explain the thought of a great epoch, which explain the secret of a civilization”. Parry said often, some of the prose was different in style and “meter”, such that it seemed “dictated” to him.

And frankly I am sure the whole book was “dictated” to him. That he was, in fact, as chaplain, the mouthpiece of these women, and his position as Chaplain allowed the viewpoints expressed to be accepted in a way that a work created and made public by women, given what it expresses, would have viewed more critically by readers. Keep in mind that it was written in Latin, and only those who were either Clerics or the nobility could read the thing. What wasn’t literally dictated, was more or less, transcribed thought, and he knew that Marie was final “editor” in the content. And his position, both as Chaplain, and his very livelihood, depending on her being happy with the finished product.

So let me make an analogy, and step just a little bit in time. Things are little muddled today cultural to make a similar one from a very current example.

Consider Hugh Hefner. And consider his show called Playboy After Dark. This was a time of much “friction”, the early 60s. Civil rights and racism are extreme issues. Sexual “freedom” is coming about. The “rights” of just about everyone are much talked about. The setting which was sort of this contrived “salon” from Paris. The set looked like a large living room in a swanky spiffy Playboy bachelor pad. All these “cool”, meaning avante guarde, “open minded”, intellectually superior, artistically superior, liberal people are just hanging out, having a spiffy party. Hef does more for civil rights in a minute than 50 writers do in 10 years by having Sammy Davis Jr on the show. Hef did more for women’s liberation by having a “guest” on the show to talk about it and the camera sees Hef nodding approval, than 50 screeching female professors could ever do.

So then that “cool” boy, that wants to be like Hef, all through the 60s and the 70s, the “cool boy” believes in Equal Rights, Racism, Feminism and this idea of “gender” and “race” being a culturally imposed concept. And that “cool” boy does it exactly because it is “artistically and culturally superior” than the conservative ideas of the time. So then imagine how pervasive both of those viewpoints on Racism and Sexism are today and how “religious” both have become in such a short time, historically. All of us have experienced the reaction of people to our Red Pill beliefs that border on religious arguments. And some of the biggest fighters of what we propose are men. So a philosophy can quickly move from the fringe and become core if the “right” people get behind it and push it.

So then imagine the same thing back in 1200, the “cool” boy, the son of the nobles, that reads latin, has a little bit of education, he thinks the Catholic church is a bunch of sticks in the mud. He is literally built, wired, for sex, to want women. And this idea of “love” makes absolute sense to him, or at least he wants it to make sense, because the top of line, highest status women, those noble women in that area between Barcelona and maybe, Bologna, were all giving approval to those men that bought into it. So by saying “I believe in Love” or “I am in Love’s army”, or “I am a soldier of love”, what he is saying is “I’m cool, man. Please like me.”

And just like today, any guy that goes against Feminism or attacks the behavior of women is shunned. I hurl some attack on women in comments to an article, and some woman comes back with “Oh, I be you just get you tons”. So in 1200, It is “No ‘Love”, then no ‘love’”, you were ostracized by women, at least the cool French Chicks who were the celebs of the day.

And so it takes hold, and as Feminism has co-opted the church, today’s women have imposed their viewpoint on church acceptance of divorce, premarital sex, with the whole idea of the “magic vagina” of women compelling those men into better behavior and better performance, and the woman has the right and the duty to punish him for failure to live up to the love that the woman has given him as a gift that he must continue to earn, the same thing happens with “love”. It co-opts the Catholic church of the day, and throughout the 13th and 14th centuries, “love” creeps into the morality and consciousness of the people at the time. The “love” thing is dominating the “court” and is leaks into the church in the relationship of accomplices that they first and second estate have which each other. It catches on and becomes the dominant aspect of the culture and women are “rehabilited”, seize control, and never let go. They have the “authority” because they have the “morality”, and they drive the course of society by controlling what is “moral” and what is “honorable”. And what constitutes both, from that point forward, are generally what is in the best interest of women, given their situation, given the time.

So why is this important to us?

First, the whole idea of “Courtly Love” was entirely hypergamistic. Entirely. The Capellanus book has as the heart of the second part, 9 dialogues. These dialogues define the Feminine Imperative.

Keep in mind, at this time, there might have been maybe 500 books floating around in total. And this is the only one on this topic available for a 100 years. The only other referenced work before this was Ovid “The Art of Love” and most scholars really see Ovid as more of a satire on the “treatises” written during his day, and not as a REFERENCE MANUAL that people today, including myself (pre-Red Pill) , see it.

I took it as “how to” book. And what it should be titled is “How to be a AFC Beta”. Also keep in mind that books were so rare, that everything thing was relayed as an oral tradition. Even as late at 1513, Luther said he had been a priest for 3 years before he ever even saw a Bible. And that’s the effing bible.

So here you are somewhere in 1200, and this major Noble dude guy, or high status babe, gets up and starts talking or singing about this new “love” thing, and everyone is nodding and agreeing. And if they don’t nod and agree, then they don’t get to be in the group, they’re fired. The High Status women turn on them, and they are ostracized.

So in the 9 dialogues, there are a series of conversations that men of one of three statuses would have with a women of one of the same three statuses. Those statuses being “commoner, noble, high noble”. And these dialogues set the ground work, the rules, of what both men and women of all three classes should, do, feel, and think about “love”. And “love” is only between those classes. Peasants don’t love. They need to stay on the farm and work it. They have no time for “love”. And love is only between people that aren’t married.

And there you go right there, with anachronistic thought. You probably thought, single people. No. Single people weren’t dating and marrying. No way. That was decided by someone else. You were probably going to be part of some arranged marriage. “Love” was between married people, at least married women and a man, but not married to each other. You can already see the way hypergamy is influencing the idea of “love”. Girl gets pawned off as a 14 year old or 15 year old as part of some arrangement between older family members. She probably didn’t like her husband very much, given what we know about women today. And he probably didn’t like her much either. I am sure there were just as many men when they first saw there “betrothed” thought, “Oh fuck, you have got to be shitting me. I have to marry this bitch?”

And in these dialogues, pure hypergamy is enforced and codified. The dialogues enforced class, at least enforced it for men. Men could try and love “up”, but most likely they couldn’t unless they displayed such extreme good character that their character was better than all of the available men in the class of the woman he was “hitting on”. But it also set a nice set of rules for women “move up”. But the women were the ones, in every case, to judge the men, the determine that even though the women were “moving” up, they still were to ones to say “OK, I’ll take you You are worthy of my love”.

And then it also codified acceptance for women to be able to “cheat” on their husbands. “Courtly Love” was only between people that were not married. They got around the 10 commandments, by stipulating that the true lover never asks for sex in return for his love. He loves merely for the purity of his love. And that the whole endeavor was supposed to remain entirely secret. That if it became public, then the “love” was dead. Over. At best he got a kiss, maybe an embrace. Gentlemen in the army of “love” never tell. And Gentlemen never demand sex. Which of course, all of this was bullshit. But since “Courtly Love” was “love” for “love”‘s sake then those husbands couldn’t get jealous, and nobody loves their husband anyway. So it gave a socially acceptable way for this woman that had this beta forced on her by marriage, then get out their and have exposure to the alphas that she truly wanted. And it gave her a social means to circumvent the church. And since everyone, at least everyone who mattered, was married to someone they didn’t like, then it was an early version of “Don’t ask; don’t tell”.

This also forms the basis of monogamy, as we know it, codified by women, in that the definition of it truly benefits women. “The true lover that truly loves only loves the one. He cannot love two. The sight of other women do not affect him because he has true love for his true love.” Notice that there are a lot of “he” and ‘his” words used. The book asserts that those men that would want sex with lots of women and have passion for someone other than “the one” under the guise of love is an an “ass”, mule, dressed up in the finest livery, but still an “ass”.

Schopenhauer said “Love! If you would have thought it up, your fellows would have thought you daft. The mere idea that because a woman allows you her favors, that you should support her for life.”

Well, it was thought up, by these women in the south of France, and it curled around and snaked its way into the current consciousness of people like it was something that people have done since the dawn of men. And it wasn’t.

When you read Capellanus’ statement of what “love” is, it is the seminal definition, the very “jump street”, the Genesis of the codification of “OneItis”. And when you read the dialogues, and then this list of the “Rules of Love” which is the part of the book that is most public, you see the fingerprint of the Feminine Imperative.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/rules_of_love.html

I think at some point in my reading, someone had described Capellanus as being very “Copernican”,as in Copernicus, and astrology, threatening the religion and the concept of the world.

I say we use him again in a Copernican manner, as the very argument that the Feminine Imperative is an entirely contrived ideal.

And we reject “love”, as in the definition of it by Capellanus. We see it as the social manipulation that it was to orchestrate the emotions of men, and actions from those emotions, entirely for the benefit of women.

Churchill said “In England, it is permitted unless it is not permitted. In Germany, it is permitted only if it is permitted. In Russia, it is not permitted even if it is permitted. And in France, it is permitted, even when it is not permitted.”

To some degree that combination of all four “permitteds” describes the Feminine Imperative. It is permitted when they want it to be permitted and not permitted when they do not. Even if it is not permitted then it is permitted, if it is in the benefit of women. And especially, it is not permitted even when it is permitted, in the case where it might benefit men at the expense of women.

They only way to put a brunt on the Feminine Imperative is make them pay a cost for their behavior. And the best way for men to do that is the rejection of “love”.

In the words of YaReally, “The manosphere is the new counter-culture”.

We are the new “cool boys”. We are the new “rebels”.

And you need to read Capellanus, and as you read it, to see the manipulation in the pages. Maybe it was adopted because it had social value to blunt the negative behavior or the men of the time and turn it in a constructive direction.

But today it is only something that is used to provide advantage for women. And that advantage is often used at the expense of men, and furthermore, for the punishment of men, the social shaming of men, when women deem the men’s behavior or actions to be at the detriment of women. And they are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner of their verdict. And no one ever challenges them.

And we begin by rejecting unilaterally, out of hand, “love” for the pack of lies it is.

So I say we use our position as influence peddlers, taste makers, of our day and time, and shame men, Mangina men, and White Knights as fools; toadies for women and their “love”. And make no mistake, that whole White Knight shit comes exactly from this book. We all should read “Treatise on Love”, deconstruct it, and expose it for the bullshit sham it is.

I have ranted this in the past. It is time for men to gain an entirely new consciousness, a new awareness, a entirely new set of constructivism abstracts on which to frame their thinking.

The constant whine, complaint, criticism of the manosphere is that is attacks “love”, it makes “love” impossible, it kills “love”.

And I say, no it doesn’t. It exposes the reality of the impossibility of “love” because “love” is entirely a manufactured ideal. And modern Feminism has brought about the recognition of the impossibility of it and rubbed it in the face of men. If you pine for it, it you whine about it, the end of it, the lack of it, then you deny the truth of it.

Modern life is entirely developed as a means to blunt the natural advantages that men have. This “love” is a further handicap, a weight on your shoulders, that limits your ability to use your advantage, physically, mentally, by women exploiting the emotional advantage that women have over men. She only has this advantage if you allow her to have it.

So discard it. It is religion in you that does not work to your advantage.

So yes, “They have a right to do anything that we can’t stop them from doing”.

But we have the capacity and the ability to make them pay for it.

In the end, and my life right now is living proof of this, they need us more than we need them. We want them; they need us. And the things that most women want, they get from us. And without the handicap of “love”, you can make them pay, and pay, and pay, until they fucking cry uncle.


Hypergamy Synthesis

synthesis

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

Rollo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Control and Synthesis

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

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

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

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

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


Quality Women

quality_women

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

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

I briefly touched on this in AFC Social Conventions:

The Myth of the “Quality” Woman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Force Fit

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Hyenas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha Females

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

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

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

They’re called Hyenas.

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

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

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

This being the case, is she really female anymore?


Generation Alpha Widow

barbie

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

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

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

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

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

That Was Then

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

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

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

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

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


Consumer Confidence

url-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Means of Production

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

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

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

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


Half Plus Seven

Half+7

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

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

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

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

Social Convention Fluidity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repurposing The Convention

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

Hypergamy doesn’t care what age a woman is.

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,665 other followers