Category Archives: Alpha

Game Works

game_works

Game, for lack of a better word, is good. Game is right. Game works.

After listening to myself on this weekend’s interview with Christian McQueen and Dagonet I realized that as I became more comfortable with the interview I found myself verbally ‘dialoging’ in much the same way that I scribble down fragments of ideas in my notebook or when I’m fleshing out a draft for some topic I’m considering in-post.

It’s always been a strange sensation for me to hear myself speak. Even when I record a voice message on my iPhone it always makes me self-conscious to listen to the message play back. However, as I was in the midst of listening to myself on the show I had the same familiar internal conversation and I picked up on a thought I had planned to write about, but I think it slipped my mind until now.

Towards the middle of our conversation I considered a few things about the benefits of Game, and it made me think about how Game has progressed to what it is today. One of the chapters in The Rational Male I specifically wrote for the book – and later converted to a blog post – was called The Evolution of Game. I added this as an effort to help uninitiated men have a better grasp of just what Game really is.

There’s been a lot of redefining of exactly what Game is over the past 12-13 years, but I’ve always considered Game an abstract term for a much larger concept.

Naturally, critics predisposed to a blue pill worldview want to portray “those red pill game guys” as throwbacks to the PUA set of the early 2000’s. This is a very shortsighted evaluation, usually proffered by guys ego-invested in a blue pill mindset and in need of easy definitions and buzz words to ridicule and move onto the next distraction.

Facing red pill truths is uncomfortable, and I understand the need to casually pass them off for fear of really having to critically reconsider ego-investments; that type of insight requires either real depth of character or an experience traumatic enough to shake one from beliefs that, in essence, make up part of their personality.

Both require a concentrated effort to learn from, and honestly, most people are too lethargic to consider red pill truths when there are more entertaining distraction to inure themselves with.

It’s just this lethargy that prevents them from understanding that Game and red pill awareness have matured far beyond the PUAs techniques of the past. Neil Strauss published The Game in 2003 – that’s 15 years since Mystery was wearing top hats and elevator boots.

Those caricatures may be comforting to laugh at, but in fifteen years the developed techniques and observations Game practitioners failed and succeeded with fed into what we would eventually come to understand as red pill awareness today.

Even some well meaning red pill Men may want to self-affirmingly ridicule the PUAs of the past and present, but if you have embraced a red pill awareness today, at least partially, you have these Men to thank for risking rejection and practicing techniques that laid a foundation for contemporary red pill awareness.

Now, imagine for a moment that, today, all men had to build on was the antiseptic studies and controlled experiments of a social science academia firmly steeped in a feminine-primary, feminine-correct social context. Imagine what red pill awareness would be if not for the guys in the field doing ‘experiments’. Imagine what marriage counselors and ‘relationship experts’ would (and honestly, still) advise men to do in order to change their lives with an understanding based solely on what a feminine- primary, controlled social science approved of.

Only the PUAs of then and now have had the unfettered freedom to perform in-field social experiments, and relate their collected evidence and observations with other men; the types of which social science has been forbidden from due either to ethical considerations or by feminine-primary social conventions.

Game does not Occur in a Vacuum

Recently the comment threads here have had a tendency to devolve into a “looks are all that matters so why bother learning Game?” line of reasoning. The commentariat can lean towards go-your-own-way defeatism, then to resolving to live in the gym until one inspire female arousal, or, to appeals to positive confidence.

And while I have always recognized – more than most other manosphere bloggers if I dare – the obvious truth that Looks are a prime requisite for arousal (and attraction), I also recognize an effort to discredit Game and red pill awareness by absolutes, extremes and absurdities.

For anyone with the sense that Game and red pill awareness is valueless and superfluous in the face of women’s primary drive for physical arousal, I suggest you read Advocatus Diaboli’s treatise on how to pragmatically use escorts (either that or relocate to the state of Nevada). Honestly, I hold no disapproval for men who feel this is the best way to satisfy their need for sex and female contact. It may indeed be your best option under the current social environment.

For anyone else, I think it’s very important to look at the benefits of Game both in an intergender and interpersonal context. If you consider yourself “red pill” (another useful, but abstract term) Game has benefitted you – because it was the early trials and errors of Game that led to red pill principles we understand now.

If you have even a cursory grasp of how women’s biology and menstrual cycle influences ovulatory shift behaviors in mate preferences and you’ve altered your perception of women, Game has benefitted you.

If you understand the basics of feminine hypergamy and the sexual strategies women use to optimize their mate selection, and then changed your intergender tact as a result of it, Game has benefitted you.

If you’ve internalized the core psychological principles underlying women’s perceptions of Amused Mastery, Command Presence, Agree & Amplify, Cocky & Funny, Social Proof, Dread and even Chick Crack, whether you’ve applied them or not, Game has expanded your consciousness of women’s behaviors and their motivators.

If you’ve had the insight to understand your blue pill conditioning, the reasons for your predispositions towards a Savior Schema, feminine identifying, why a LJBF is a rejection, why Beta Game comes naturally to men but is self defeating, or why SMV accrues and decays over the course of a lifetime, Game and the red pill have benefitted you.

If you’ve used or modified any of these principles to better your marriage, your dealings with co-workers, your daughter, mother or even your best friend’s domineering wife, you’ve benefitted from Game.

If you’ve saved or bettered another man’s life, or bettered his intergender relationships, you’ve both benefitted from Game.

I could go on, but if you honestly believe that women’s primary physical arousal cues trump any value that Game or red pill awareness really has, then you’re wasting your time here reading and commenting on what I have to offer. You’d be better served by focusing all your attentions to lifting in the gym and shifting your career goals toward a job that is physically demanding and keeps you at your physical best.

Ironically, getting in shape is also an aspect of Game. Even if your belief is “Looks are everything”, but yet your understanding of this comes as a result of your red pill awareness of the Alpha Fucks side of hypergamy, Game has benefitted you.

Just a familiarity with Game concepts, whether you accept them or not, still influence your perception of women and the motivations behind their behaviors.

Red pill awareness challenges feminine-primary thinking. Why do you think the mass dissemination of red pill awareness is so threatening to the Feminine Imperative?

Doing Something

What is the manosphere actually ‘doing’?

This is the first critique I expect from from a poor debate opponent – disqualifying the strength or validity of a premise by the ‘success’ or lack thereof of a proponent’s efforts to enact or convince others of that premise.

By this logic, one could make the case that the MRM is an utter failure, but it still doesn’t mean they aren’t correct in their efforts.

As I mentioned on the Christian McQueen Show, I’m of a bottom up, or an inside – out mind when it comes to enacting red pill ‘change. The manosphere is raising awareness and this needs time (maybe even a generation) to mature into personal consciousness and then popular consciousness.

It’s difficult to quantify the ‘results’ of the manosphere, red pill awareness and Game because its effects are individually subjective at this stage. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.

That’s not meant to gloss myself, but rather to illustrate a point – the red pill (and Game) is doing something, it’s changing minds and lives. It’s not rallying men in the streets and waving banners, nor is it effecting legal or social policy (yet), but it’s making men aware of their condition and changing their beliefs.

No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”, while red pill awareness has done more for men individually. For all of the MRM’s efforts to enact public change, all it takes is one White Knight in a position of authority to say “GTFO you misogynist creeps!” Now imagine in the future a man who’s red pill aware in a position to effect that policy.

Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.

That change will happen in men’s relationships with their wives, daughters and sons. That change may simply be a form of ‘civil disobedience’ in not marrying at all, or holding women accountable for their open embrace of hypergamy and their AFBB sexual strategy and only marrying / supporting women who make an effort to control their hypergamy.

That change will happen in the workplace and hiring practices. That change will filter into men’s better understanding as the red pill spreads and men reassume some of the social frame control the Feminine Imperative unilaterally legislates and provide to women now.

The red pill is ‘doing’ something, it’s planting the seeds for a greater shift in gender power with every man who becomes aware of how women ‘are’ and what they will predictably do.


The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

Janus

For as often as I’ve made my best attempts to define what I believe constitutes feminine Hypergamy on this blog, it seems that critics of the red pill, and even newer, well-meaning  red pill advocates, are beginning to think of Hypergamy as some convenient trope that manosphereans refer to when they want to explain away some annoyingly female trait.

Is she shit testing you? Must be Hypergamy. She broke a nail? Must be Hypergamy.

There is a very real want for understanding things in as simplistic a solution as possible, but feminine Hypergamy isn’t a dynamic that lends itself to a simple definitions. One of the reasons the early proponents of PUA ran into issues with legitimizing their ideas was due to so many of their ‘students’ seeking out easily digestible answers to solve their ‘girl problems’. As I laid out in Dream Girls and Children with Dynamite, these guys wanted the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) footnote version of what to do in order to get to the silver bullet, magic formula part of the lesson to either get with their dream girl or “start fucking hot bitches”.

It is exactly this mentality that’s now causing such frustration in understanding Hypergamy and seeing how it works, not just in individual women’s personal decisions, but as a societally influencing force of the Feminine Imperative. Hypergamy is not a “math is hard” dynamic, but because it requires a comprehensive (and evolving) understanding it seems like the go-to throwaway answer to women’s behaviors and mental schemas to men (usually new to the red pill) without the patience to really invest themselves into grasping it.

I’ve defined Hypergamy so often on this blog that if you search the term “hypergamy” in Google, the Rational Male blog is the number two return below the wikipedia definition. As I write my way through the second volume of the Rational Male book I’ve found that a concise understanding of feminine Hypergamy is vital to grasping so much of the social and psychological dynamics that are a result of it. Every PUA technique, every common frustration MGTOW experience, and every gender-biased social injustice MRAs set themselves against, all find their roots in feminine Hypergamy, women’s pluralistic sexual strategy and the social and legal manifestation employed to ensure maximal feminine social primacy in optimizing Hypergamy.

Looks vs Character (Game)

Over the course of the past five or so posts, the topic of discussion in the comment threads has eventually found its way back to the basics of Looks versus Character (or Game, depending on your perspective of how learning affects character). Only discussions over what constitutes ‘Alpha’ in a man are so contentious as the importance women prioritize physical arousal in men.

I’ve already covered this debate and what I believe influences women’s arousal priorities in the Looks Count and Have A Look posts. My intent with today’s post isn’t to reheat these old debates, but rather to investigate a bit further into the connection between Hypergamy and this arousal prioritization.

First and foremost it’s important to understand the part that women’s biologies play in influencing Hypergamy and how women’s biology is more or less the point of origin for how they conduct their sexual strategy. To review, I’ll ask that readers refer to my post Your Friend Menstruation, but the basis of women’s sexual pluralism is found in the natural attraction predispositions that women experience as a result of (healthy) ovulation.

In her up cycle (proliferative) phase of ovulation, women are psychologically and behaviorally motivated to prioritize physical arousal above all other breeding considerations. In her down cycle (post-ovulation, luteal phase) women a similarly motivated to prioritize comfort, rapport, and long term security to ensure parental investment and benefit survival.

What I’ve described here, in as brief a fashion, is the foundation of Ovulatory Shift. There exists over a decade’s worth of experimental psychological and biological evidence supporting this theory. Due to biological and psychological influence, women become subliminally predisposed to behaviors which maximize fertility odds with the best available breeding opportunity, and maximize the best potential for long term provisioning and parental investment.

Whether this behavior is manifested in a preference for more masculinized male faces and body type, greater ornamentation and lower vocal intonation for women during ovulation, or a predisposition for more comforting, nurturing and supportive male characteristics during her luteal phase, the end result is optimizing Hypergamy, and ultimately reproduction.

For further reading on Ovulatory Shift, see the research of Martie Hasselton.

Arousal vs. Attraction

From last week’s post, in one of his less long-winded comments, commenter Siirtyrion inserted this bit of evolutionary truth:

Females only receive two quantities of evolutionary value from males – direct benefits (observed in long-term mating, with implications for the survival of offspring), and genetic benefits (observed through indications of physical attractiveness in her mate). And since females can receive genetic benefits outside of marriage (i.e. through casual sexual encounters), and no longer need rely upon mates for the survival of their offspring, there is no pressure for them to compromise on holding out for an unlikely (long-term) fantasy partner.

This current social pattern increases highly male variance in mating success, because female sexual choices always tend towards small male breeding populations (narrow range of male phenotypes), while male ‘preferences’ are inclusive of a broad range in female variance.

I believe one of the main contentions Siirtyrion kind of needles with this is that, as described, modern conveniences of female social empowerment (actual or imagined) discounts the need for hypergamic assurances of long term security. I’m not so willing to accept an overall disregard for the provisioning aspect (Beta Bucks) – you’re not going to reprogram millennia of psychologically evolved firmware overnight – but in discounting this need, the characteristics for which women would seek out a male exemplifying the best long-term security are deemphasized if not considered entirely.

If you read through any woman’s online dating profile you undoubtedly come across some variation of what Roissy has described as the “483 bullet point checklist” of stated prerequisites a man must possess in order for her to consider him a viable candidate for her intimacy. While I don’t think there are quite that many items on the checklist, you’ll find a host of common-theme personal qualities a guy has to have in order to be her boyfriend – confident (above all), humorous, kind, intelligent, creative, decisive, sensitive, respectful, spiritual, patient,..I could go on or you could just read this old joke.

The point is that all of these characteristics that women list as being ‘attractive’ have absolutely no bearing on how sexually, physically, ‘arousing’ a woman finds a man. As I’ve described in the past, while Game and personality can certainly accentuate arousal, all of these esoteric personal qualities have no intrinsic  “‘gina tingle” value if a man isn’t an arousal prospect to begin with.

The confusion that most Beta men make is presuming that what women list as being necessarily ‘attractive’ IS what makes him ‘arousing’. So when he models himself (often over the course of a lifetime) to personally identify with this checklist of attractive prerequisites he’s often frustrated and angered when all of that personal development makes for little difference when a woman opts to regularly fuck men of a better physical standard.

It’s duplicity of a sort, but it is also a strategy of deliberate confusion.

It may not be a woman’s conscious plan, but this deliberate confusion makes the best pragmatic sense to effect an optimized Hypergamy. Remember that Hypergamy is not just Alpha Fucks, it’s also Beta Bucks … if a bit delayed in her life in order to maximize Alpha Fucks. So when a woman describes what she finds “attractive” in a man this list will include all of the above bullet point characteristics because they “sound right” – because they shine her in the best light, yes, but also because in being so concerned she imputes the idea that she’s following the ‘right’ plan of looking for a good man to have a future with, and raise kids with.

Then and Now

This is going to sound like I’m glossing myself, but bear with me – I can remember how effortless sex used to be for me when I was in my 20’s. I had sex outdoors, in cars, hotel rooms, in hot tubs, in the steam room of an all women’s gym (after hours), I even got after it with a girlfriend in the balcony of a church in L.A. once (again after hours, no one around, only for convenience I assure you). Mostly I didn’t have a dime to my name, but I still had one of two fuck-buddies who would literally come to the bedroom window of my apartment to fuck me in the morning once or twice a week before I went off to the community college I was going to.

The point is there was no pretense of ‘attraction’ being anything other than a girl and I enjoying ourselves then. There was no ‘checklist’ of acceptable pre-qualifications for intimacy. The providership necessity that dictates a need for long-term consideration wasn’t even an afterthought; in other words, the Beta Bucks / Character / Integrity aspect of Hypergamy that women publicly claim is a dealbreaker for real intimacy was prioritized far below Alpha Fucks sexual urgency.

You can say these were just the types of girls I was getting with at the time, but courtesy of social media, I assure you, you would think these women would never have had that capacity now. They were all “sooo different when they were in college.”

It’s not until after a woman’s Epiphany Phase at around the time she becomes aware of her SMV decline that she begins to consider making that Beta Bucks checklist any kind of prerequisite for sex and intimate partnering. However, this epiphany isn’t the sudden revelation women would like men to believe it is.

For the life of me I can’t remember where I read the link, but I was reading a ‘Dear Abby’ sort of advice seeking article from a young girl (early 20’s) who was exasperated over finding the “perfect guy” only she couldn’t ‘get with him now‘. Her words were something like “He’s so great, awesome personality, funny, in love with me, supportive, etc., but I wish I could freeze him in time so he’d be the same guy and waiting for me when I turn 29 or 30.”

On some level of consciousness, like most women, she knows the dictates of what her own Hypergamy is predisposing her to. She knows she’ll eventually need that ‘perfect’ supportive, in-love guy to live out the long-term aspect of her Hypergamy with,…after she’s exhausted her short term breeding potential with men who better embody the Alpha Fucks dictates of her Hypergamy.

Arousal Preparation vs. Provisioning Preparation

For all of Siirtyrion’s vernacular, I will have to agree (to a point) that the balance between women’s short term breeding impulse and the long term provisioning needs Hypergamy predisposes them to now strongly favors the Alpha sex side of that optimization.

In Open Hypergamy I made a case for the aspect of an ‘old order’ of Beta Provisioning being a previously ‘attractive’ element for women’s determining long term suitability with a man, and that this old order was being replaced with other, extrinsic means of ensuring a woman’s security needs. Whether by social funding, or by indenturing men to provide for women’s wellbeing through other social conventions the effect is an imbalance between the dual nature of women’s sexual strategy.

However, I also feel it goes beyond just the social element now. Men are still confused by a feminine conditioning which wants to ‘freeze’ him in time in order to be the dutiful ‘perfect’ guy, ready to be thawed out and ready to serve the Feminine Imperative at a woman’s convenience.

While still convenient, men must be conditioned to confuse him that ‘attraction’ qualities are ‘arousal’ qualities in order to have him ready to be ‘perfect’ at his appointed time – and it is women who need to believe for themselves that this is what they think should be true.

The Myth of the ‘Good’ Guy

In the beginning of one of my earliest posts, Schedules of Mating, I briefly refer to the ideally balanced guy who would satisfy the optimization purpose of women’s Hypergamy:

There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this.

There is a dichotomy that exists for men in this respect, which really has no parallel for women.

I am aware of certain (formerly red pill) bloggers who promote the archetype of a ‘Good’ guy as some role for men to ideally aspire to. The ‘Alpha Cad’ archetype must necessarily become the ‘douchebag’ caricature of an overtly distasteful masculinity (for men less able to embody it) and yet, the opposite caricature of the doormat, supplicating ‘Beta Dad’ is equally distasteful and certainly untenable when we consider that ‘attractive’ qualities are never ‘arousing’ qualities.

So the archetype of the ‘Good’ guy is offered up as some sort of livable, compromised ideal. If men could aspire to embody the best of the Alpha and temper that with what they define themselves as the best of the Beta, well then he’d be the ‘perfect’ catch for any woman of course.

The problem with this ‘Good Guy’ myth is not because men can’t or wouldn’t want to try to balance women’s Hypergamy for them, but simply because women neither want nor expect that balance in the same man to begin with.

It comes back to the Just Get It principle for women – any guy who needs to make a concerned effort to become what he expects women will want from him to be ‘the perfect guy’ doesn’t get it. They want Mr. Perfect because that is who he already is.

I mentioned above that there really is no parallel for this in women and I’m sure the Madonna / Whore dichotomy will be mentioned in the comments later, but allow me to point out that there is no concerted parallel social effort on the part of women in which women prompt each other to become a ‘Good Girl’ in order to satisfy the ideals of men. If anything a hostile opposite resistance to this is most true.

Women neither expect nor want a ‘Good Guy’ because he’s not believable, and his genuineness is always doubtable. That may sound jaded, but throw away any idea of being a ‘Good Guy’ balance of Alpha and Beta, because the Beta side of ‘good’ is so reinforced and common in men that it’s become the default template for women’s perception of you.

There is no Alpha with a side of Beta, there is only the man who’s genuine concern is first for himself, the man who prepares and provisions for himself, the man who maintains Frame to the point of arrogance because that’s who he is and what he genuinely merits. There is only the Man who improves his circumstance for his own benefit, and then, by association and merit, the benefit of those whom he loves and befriends.

That’s the Man who Just Gets It.


Open Hypergamy

As I wrote in Controlling Interests, the secrecy previously necessary for hypergamy and women’s pluralistic sexual strategy is rapidly being replaced with not just a new, overt, social openness about it, but a flaunting, triumphalism about how men are expected to embrace this new openness about it.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

As in this Red Robin commercial, it’s gotten to the point now that the Feminine Imperative is comfortable in ridiculing men for not already being aware of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic of hypergamy, as well as ridiculing them for going along with it anyway.

The expectation that men should already know this dynamic and be ready to accept it, and commit himself to it, engenders genuine shock when a man deviates from that script. As we found with the story of the Spreadsheet Guy a couple weeks ago, the anger female commenters expressed over his logging his wife’s excuses for turning him down sexually was not due to his actions, but rather what those actions represented for the greater whole of men.

Women’s indignation over this was rooted in a Beta man not already being aware of the role he was expected to play. The new order fem-groupthink presumes that any guy who follows the old order socio-sexual contract should already know he’s been cast as a dutiful, providing Beta — he follows the prepared script for the guy who responsibly proves he’s a ‘better man’ for having forgiven her sexual indiscretions with prior Alpha’s and accepting the role of being relegated to being her emotional supporter and hand-holder. And all of this after she’s had her “self-discovery” and know who “she really is.”

Genies and Bottles

This expectation of men being preconditioned to follow a feminine-primary social order is not just limited to women’s expectations. We’ve progressed to the point that blue pill men are becoming vocal advocates for this same acceptance of open hypergamy.

Under the dubious pretense of concern for the general lack of gallant, chivalry and Beta Bucks-side provisioning women are entitled to – in spite of women’s embrace of open hypergamy – these watered down ‘purple pill’ “Dating Coaches” suffer from the same shock and indignation that a woman, somewhere, might not be given her life’s due of having a dutiful Beta awaiting to fulfill the provisioning side of her sexual strategy when her SMV begins to decay in earnest.

In a feminine centric social order, even men must be strong advocates for open hypergamy, and essentially their own proactive cuckoldry. That a woman may be better prepared than most Beta men to provide for her own security is never an afterthought – their sales pitch is the same old-order lie that women will reciprocate intimately for a man’s good nature and virtuous respect for the feminine if he’ll only accept open hypergamy.

But Spreadsheet Guy went off the reservation, “how dare he keep track of his wife’s sexual frequency!” The general anger is rooted in his ‘not getting‘ the social convention that sex (for consummate Beta providers) “tapers off after marriage”, but if he would just Man Up and fall back into his supportive, pre-established role, and learn to be a better, more attentive ‘man’ for his wife, she would (logically) reciprocate with more sex.

For what it’s worth, the men women want to fuck wouldn’t keep track of sexual frequency because the dread of missing out on a sexual opportunity with a desirable Alpha is usually enough to ensure frequency. Alpha Men wouldn’t complain about sexual frequency, they simply move on to a new woman. Beta’s complain about sexual frequency because they are expected to know and accept (now via open hypergamy) that they will never get the type of sex their women had with the Alphas before them, but are led to believe they would get (and better) if they commit to a woman’s provisioning.

Nobody marries their ‘best sex ever':

According to a recent study by iVillage, less than half of wedded women married the person who was the best sex of their lives (52 percent say that was an ex.) In fact, 66 percent would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than sleep with a spouse.

Amanda Chatel, a 33-year-old writer from the East Village, says, “With the men I’ve loved, the sex has been good, sometimes great, but never ‘best.’ It’s resulted in many orgasms and was fun but, comparatively speaking, it didn’t have that intensity that comes with the ‘best’ sex.

“I knew [my best sex partner] was temporary, and so the great sex was the best because the sex was the relationship,” she adds. “We didn’t have to invest in anything else.”

As you can see here, the incremental problem that advocates of the ‘Man Up and accept your duty to open hypergamy’ meme will find is that reconciling the old-order social contract they need to balance hypergamy will become increasingly more difficult as example after example like this become more evident and more commonplace.

These ‘Dating Coaches’ are hocking advice from the perspective of an old-order social contract for men, in order to reconcile the well earned, well deserved consequences women are now suffering as a result of a new-order, feminine-primary social contract that has embraced unrestrained hypergamy.

Getting the Best of Her

Another link had been making the rounds in the manosphere a few weeks ago, and at the risk of just adding my own voice to the chorus I thought I’d dissect it a bit. You can have a read of the original “advice column” here, but I think the quotes will pretty much tell the story. Emphasis my own:

 Dear Carolyn:

After multiple relationships not working out because both parties were dishonest in one way or another, I decided to use a new approach to my current relationship. I am 23, met my current boyfriend (also 23) online, and decided to be COMPLETELY HONEST.

This was meant to mostly cover my feelings, as I tended to hold things in unhealthily, but I let it fold over to all aspects, including the disclosure of my sexual history. I have now learned this was a mistake.

Not to make any Beta leaning guy even more depressed, but I read this and couldn’t help but see how the Sheryl Sandberg ‘open hypergamy’ model is only going to aggravate more and more unplugged / red pill aware Betas.

Think about how disenfranchised that dutiful Beta is going to be when he is flat out told to his face by a woman, he was conditioned to believe would appreciate his unique old order appeal, that he’ll never be getting the ‘sexual best’ he believed his wife would have waiting for him in marriage. It’s one thing to read article after article detailing the triumphant aspects of a new open hypergamy, and it’s one thing to see it blatantly used in commercial advertising, but it’s quite another to experience it firsthand, viscerally, in your face.

Besides the fact that she’s had multiple “relationships” at age 23, I find it interesting that she’s recognized this ‘openness’ as a mistake. Not a mistake with regards to her own choices, but rather a mistake in feeling comfortable enough to lay bear her sexual strategy for a guy who should expects should already be “accepting of who she is.”

Compare the open hypergamy model with the guy from Saving the Best:

I am so fucking lucky. I got married to a whore, that fucks like a prude.

In feminine-primary society men are constantly and publicly demonized as the ‘manipulator’. The default is to assume men are the one’s to watch out for. Men are the sex with the most dishonest nature with the most to gain sexually by playing games to trick women into believing they’re something they’re not in order to fuck them and leave them.

This presumptions is really a generalized social convention that builds a foundation for more specific social conventions women need in order to exercise feminine-primary control with men and culture on whole. It’s actually a rudimentary convention that’s easy to accept for women since feminine hypergamy has evolved a subconscious ‘vetting’ mechanism into most women’s psyches.

While it’s giggly and entertaining for women to categorize men into Cads and Dads, the irony of their doing so is that this only highlights women’s life-long patterns of deception and the manipulation efforts necessary to effecting their own dualistic sexual strategy.

That sexual selection ‘firmware’, the one which predisposes women on a limbic level to evaluating mating options of short term breeding opportunities (Alpha Fucks) with parental investment opportunities (Beta Bucks), is the same mechanism that made women the more deceptive sex when it comes to sexual strategies. The problem now is that this hypergamous deceptiveness is being replaced with ‘complete honesty’ from a macro-societal level down to an interpersonal one.

And ironically, it will be the most stubborn of blue pill Beta men, advocating for a return to an old-order social contract destroyed by the very women they hope will respond to it, who will be the last to finally accept and respond to the new-order of open hypergamy.


The Proposal

 

The above scene is from the Netflix Original Series, House of Cards (season 1, episode 6). I had a friend recently suggest the series to me because, as he said, “he knew I’d get into it.”

My professional life generally doesn’t leave me the time get into anything on TV, but I’ll admit to picking up the first six episodes of House of Cards and wanting to watch more of it. I’m not going to get into the details as to why I like it (you can probably guess), but I have thus far been impressed with the 48 Laws of Power aspect of it. I apologize for the quality of the clip, but it was the best I could dig up on youtube.

However, I watched this scene a day ago and I knew I’d have to drop a quick post about it. For those unfamiliar with the story I’ll give you an outline; Steve, the man in the hospital bed, is the former security detail for Frank Underwood, a U.S. congressman and an archetypal Alpha power broker on Capital Hill. After 8 years as the personal security guard of the Underwoods he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and is now on his death bed.

The woman, Claire, is Frank Underwood’s wife and an equally influential lobbyist (yes, I realize her story changes) and political figure. Steve texts Claire to come to his bedside (after sending his dutiful wife away) for what amounts to one of the most pathetic Beta male – ONEitis (death bed) confessions I’ve witnessed in a long time.

I won’t spoil the rest of the scene by relating Claire’s response, but I thought this was one of the most honest portrayals of not just the ugly reality of hypergamy and women’s underlying motives in optimizing it, but also the (in some cases life-long) idealism, to the point of pathology, Betas will endure ONEitis and to the point of death, fail to ever grasp the truth of that idealism. Women love opportunistically, men love idealistically and this scene is a harsh reminder of that.

Be warned, this is a brutal and cruel scene, but the truth often is. Sometimes cruelty is what’s necessary to wake men up to the truth, and hopefully before they’re on their death bed.


Controlling Interests

controlling

I realize I dropped this quote last week, but it provides us with a unique illustration of the prevailing feminine psychology that’s been evolving since the sexual revolution.

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

In last week’s post I made note that Sheryl Sandberg was blissfully ignorant of her blatant admission of feminine hypergamy, but I felt her ‘advice’ to women here represented so much more than just a display of her solipsistic ignorance.

For as long as I’ve butted heads with many obstinate deniers of hypergamy’s influences, on women personally and society on whole, I’m not sure I’ve read a more damning indictment of hypergamy from a more influential woman. Sandberg’s advice to the next generation of women essentially puts the lie to, and exposes the uncomfortable truth about, women’s efforts deny the fundamental dynamic of female sexual strategy – Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.

Even if you want to argue the evolutionary (psychology) and biological origins of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, the fact is now socially evident; women have come to a point where they’re comfortable in openly admitting the truth that Red Pill awareness has been drawing attention to for over a decade now.

Courtesy of Sheryl Sandberg, the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks basis of women’s sexual pluralism is now publicly recognized. It’s kind of ironic considering that what the manosphere has been trying to make men aware of for years is now being co-opted, embraced and owned as if women had always practiced an open sexual pluralism – incredulous to any man’s shock over it.

However, the truth is that a feminine-centric social order can no longer hide the increasingly obvious fallout and consequences of a society restructured to accommodate women as the predominant sexual interest.

Last week I speculated that Sandberg was ignorant of the feminine-primary implications that her statements draw attention to – and I’m still of the opinion that an innate feminine solipsism motivates more and more women to this admission – but it’s impossible to ignore the new degree of comfort in which women feel in laying bare their dualistic sexual strategy.

To some significant extent the Feminine Imperative no longer needs to keep the ‘Good Genes’ / ‘Good Dad’ dichotomy ugliness a secret from men.

In last week’s post I mentioned that a new ambient sense of an assured long-term security in the feminine mind was predisposing women to prioritize the ‘Best Genes’ (Alpha Fucks) side of feminine hypergamy. Sandberg’s ‘advice’ is a vital confirmation of this, however, she tacitly acknowledges a window of  opportunity during which women possess a better capacity to pursue this side of hypergamy:

The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner.

In these two sentences Sheryl (and by extensions the Feminine Imperative) essentially confirms women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, my (now infamous) sexual market value graph depicting women’s peak SMV and decay, and the first half of the time line of women’s phases of maturity I laid forth in the first two installments of the Preventative Medicine series.

Selling the Beta

With regards to men, I believe the most salient part of Sandberg’s admission is found at the end:

These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.

For the better half of the time since the sexual revolution it was necessary for the Feminine Imperative to convince a majority of men that their eventual Beta providership for women was not only their duty, but also a prime aspect of feminine attraction. As I mentioned last week, under the (pre-sexual revolution) old-order attraction model this may have been the case to a large degree. However after the revolution, and as women’s hypergamy prioritized towards ‘Good Genes’ short-term sexual partners, the ‘Good Dad’ (Beta Bucks) men needed an ever increasing ‘sell’ of their own attractiveness by women.

This persistent sell was a necessary element of ensuring a future long-term security for women while pursuing increasingly more short-term breeding opportunities as feminine-primacy expanded into society. The future ‘Good Dads’ would need to be patiently waiting out women’s “indiscretion years” during their SMV peak, so the sell became an ever-evolving definition of what women found attractive in men based on that old-order model of dependability, patience, industriousness, and every other characteristic that defined a good provider.

Quoted from Why Muscularity is Sexy:

According to strategic pluralism theory (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000), men have evolved to pursue reproductive strategies that are contingent on their value on the mating market. More attractive men accrue reproductive benefits from spending more time seeking multiple mating partners and relatively less time investing in offspring. In contrast, the reproductive effort of less attractive men, who do not have the same mating opportunities, is better allocated to investing heavily in their mates and offspring and spending relatively less time seeking additional mates.

From a woman’s perspective, the ideal is to attract a partner who confers both long-term investment benefits and genetic benefits. Not all women, however, will be able to attract long-term investing mates who also display heritable fitness cues. Consequently, women face trade-offs in choosing mates because they may be forced to choose between males displaying fitness indicators or those who will assist in offspring care and be good long-term mates (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). The most straightforward prediction that follows is that women seeking short-term mates, when the man’s only contribution to offspring is genetic, should prefer muscularity more than women seeking long-term mates.

Strategic pluralism theory is a pretty good definition of feminine hypergamy, but what this theory hadn’t yet accounted for (at the time it was published) was the necessitousness of women with regards to short-term mating strategies and long-term parental investment opportunities over the course of the various phases of maturity as they aged.

The Beta investment sell was necessary because it ensured male parental investment at a later (usually just-pre-Wall) time in a woman’s life. Thus, Sandberg’s praise of men “who think women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. [Men] who value fairness and expect or, even better, want to do his share in the home” will eventually be sexier than the Alpha “bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys” she encourages women to fuck earlier in life is an excellent example of this sell.

Ironically it’s exactly with this sell that women encourage the very transactional nature of sexual relations with men they’re screeching about recently. It’s the Choreplay fallacy on a meta scale – do more around the house, play into the equalitarian schema women think they need in a provider, support her ambitiousness and opinionatedness and you’ll be considered “sexier” and get her Best Sex she’s been saving just for a guy like this.

Building the Beta

The problem the Feminine Imperative runs into with selling the Beta is that as women’s “independence” expands this sell becomes less necessary and less effective. Less necessary because women’s personal, social and legal long-term security insurances have become almost entirely disconnected from men’s direct (not indirect) provisioning. Less effective because men have become increasingly aware of their disenfranchisement of the old-order provisioning model as being something they might equitably be rewarded for.

As the consequences and repercussions of women’s hypergamous priority shift to Alpha Fucks become more evident and real for men; and as their capacity and comfort with connecting and relating these experiences with other men becomes more widespread, the less effective the sell is for Beta men awaiting their turn to enter into a pre or post Wall monogamy with the women attempting the sell.

Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and most of the 90’s, the sell was effective because men were isolated socially and technologically from each other’s relative experiences. From the late 90’s onward that isolation has diminished while the societal results of feminine-primacy have become more glaringly, and painfully, evident to men.

In its ever-reinventive fluidity, the Feminine Imperative found it necessary to transition from selling men on being later and later life long-term providers for women into building a generation of men who would expect of themselves to fulfill that role when the time came. These men would be raised and conditioned to be the patient Beta providers women would need once they had followed the Sandberg model of hypergamy.

These would be the boys / men who would be taught to “naturally” defer to the authority of women under the auspices of a desire to be an equal partner.

These are the men raised privately and created socially to be ready for women, “when it comes time to settle down, and find someone who wants an equal partner.”

These would be the men ready to expect and accept a woman’s proactive cuckoldry of him in the name of being a pro-feminine equal.

These are the men raised to accept an open form of hypergamy in place of the selling to an old-order Beta provisioning model.

The Hypergamy Schism

The problem this creates for women becomes one of dealing with the men they need to sell a secretive hypergamy to and the men they build to accept an open form of hypergamy to. The increasing comfort with an open admission of hypergamy is relative to a woman’s capacity to get away with it.

A woman like Sheryl Sandberg has the means to decisively ensure her future independence and long-term security (at least in the financial sense) whether she’s married or not. She could very well return to the Bad Boys she found so arousing and advises women ‘date’ and never rely on a man’s direct provisioning. As such she’s very comfortable in publicly revealing the ins and outs of post-sexual revolution hypergamy without so much as an afterthought.

While she publicly affirms the build model of Beta provisioning (under the guise of equalism) and expects “those guys will be awaiting you” this doesn’t hold true for a majority of women. Women with affluence enough, or a physical attractiveness sufficient to virtually ensure their future provisioning are much more comfortable with the build a better Beta model than women who find themselves more lacking in this assurance.

The more necessitous a woman finds herself in the sexual marketplace, the more likely she is to deny the mechanics of her own hypergamy.

A woman less confident in consolidating on her future long-term security (and / or cooperative parental investment) has a much more personal investment in keeping the truths of hypergamy a secret from men. As such, these women will be more predisposed to misdirecting the men becoming more aware of this truth and relying more on the selling model of Beta provisioning.

Needless to say this split between women comfortable in open hypergamy and women reliant upon secretive hypergamy is a point of conflict between the have’s and have not women in the sexual marketplace. The more men become aware of women’s hypergamy and strategic sexual pluralism, through women’s open embrace of it or the manosphere, the more pressure the ‘have not’ women will feel to also embrace that openness.


Owed Sex

ron-hermione

In the aftermath of the Eliot Rodger’s tragedy there was one resounding go-to mantra from mainstream media, blue pill plugins and the femintariat alike…

“Men are not owed sex for anything.”

Last week I left a couple of comments on Dalrock’s blog outlining my expectations of having this be the first easily consumable public meme.

In its entirety:

This is the first binary retort I expect from feminists unwilling to dig any deeper into the transactional nature of human sexuality. God bless Roosh, but he didn’t do the manosphere any favors by simply stating that incidents like Eliot Rodger’s wouldn’t occur if men had more socially acceptable alternatives for sexual release or female intimacy, and then just leave the interpretation up to a media founded on feminism and feminine-primacy.

I get what his intent was, and probably most of the manosphere did too, but it was just too oversimplified not to be snapped up in the most binary (black or white) terms by feminist, like Linker, and the MSM as an easy mark to line up against. So of course “men” and fem-centrists throw out stupid bromides like “what, do we need ‘sex vending machines’ to keep men’s urges in tact so they wont shoot the pretty blondes they wanna fuck?”

The premise that a man would ever be ‘owed’ sex for anything is offensive to the feminine imperative because it offends women’s self-entitlement to being filters of their own hypergamy, plain and simple. Women’s hypergamy dictates whom they will and will not fuck according to their sexual strategy’s most urgent needs.

To presume a man is ‘owed’ sex for services rendered, or due to his own self-perceived prequalifications for a woman’s intimacy, is to remove women’s control of the decision making / filtering process of their hypergamy.

The offensiveness doesn’t come from the notion that men would need to perform in order to get sex, but rather that a man might forcibly assume control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.

This first comment was in response to the Damon Linker article Dalrock was picking apart. I won’t steal Dal’s thunder, so if you’re interested in that full article go have a read of it in its entirety. Later Dal asked me to clarify what I meant about men “forcibly assuming control of a woman’s hypergamous determining of his sexual suitability for her.”

I’m not clear on what you mean here, and fear that others will take this as a justification of rape. What do you mean by “forcibly”? Are you talking about Game?

To which my comment was, again, in its entirety:

Game, rape, guilt, shame, prearranged marriage, obligation, moral enforcement, really anything that removes or limits a woman’s hypergamous filtering and puts that control into the decision making process of men.

In the case of Rodger, although his killings don’t bear it out, his intent, at least as interpreted by a feminized MSM, was a presumed obligation on the part of women (and top shelf women no less) to recognize his self-perceived superior qualifications for their intimacy and reward him with sex, love, adoration, affection, etc.

Granted, the kid was a sperg with a list of very real psychological disorders, but the only thing a fem-centric society focuses on is the audacity he had in presuming he, and by association Any Man®, could assume control of a woman’s hypergamous filtering – in this case via an implied obligation.

The Two Sides of Hypergamy

Anyone who’s read the first part of my Preventative Medicine series understands the dual nature of feminine hypergamy. From a biological level to a social level, feminine hypergamy demands the optimization of two disparate elements: securing the best genetic (breeding) option a woman can attract, and the best long-term provisioning (security) option she can attract in a male. From biologically prompted mating behaviors to contemporary social entitlements, women seek a balance between breeding optimization and security optimization – preferably in the same man, but failing this, optimally in different men.

I’ve written about women’s security needs in various posts, but it’s important to understand that optimizing a woman’s best available options for hypergamy (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) prompts a deep, evolved, psychological need for certainty. Feminine Hypergamy is defined by a profound, often life-long, uncertainty and doubt over the choices she makes in breeding and / or bonding with a given pool of men in her lifetime.

The Need for Certainty

Women’s sexual filtering, vetting, nagging, shit testing, as well as many other evolved habits are all subconsciously inspired by a need for hypergamic certainty.

In a pre-sexual revolution social order, a woman’s capacity to optimize her hypergamy (and pacify the uncertainty) had a variety of extrinsic limitations.

Some of these I listed in my comment to Dalrock; guilt, cultural stigma, shame, moral and religious conviction, obligations to family, arranged marriages, polygamy, and yes, rape, were all a means to limiting a woman’s decision making capacity to optimize her innate hypergamy.

Before I continue, let me state in no unclear terms, rape, in its most visceral definition, is bad. I don’t believe the general population of men need a lesson in yet more feminine shaming efforts to understand this simple idea. As most readers know, it’s generally my practice to describe things – not to prescribe things – and allow readers to make their own moral conclusions, but I’ll break form in this case.

Any given reader may see a positive or a negative argument for limiting feminine hypergamy via cultural or religious doctrines, but I am not now, nor will I ever, endorse forced sexual penetration on women (or men) as anything but a negative. However, in light of its undeniable limiting of feminine hypergamous choice, throughout human history, rape is the most direct way men have most decisively removed a woman’s hypergamic decision making capacity. To ignore this truth, or to be cowed by even the thought of considering it, is to deny the obvious.

In a post-sexual revolution social order, women’s control over their hypergamy is only limited by their capacity to attract the best prospective mate their sexuality, personality and physicality will afford them. Whether provided for by the state, personal independence or other means women in a post-sexual revolution era, to a larger degree than any other time in western history, have the security side of their hypergamic optimization virtually guaranteed.

Even with women for whom this security isn’t fully realized, the greater social undercurrent for the past 60 years has been one which presents women with a social responsibility to break away from provisional dependency on men, thus granting women unilateral control over their hypergamous decision making.

Whether this security-side assurance comes from legal institutions, abortion laws, paternity laws, the advent of no fault divorce, child custody and support distribution, or, the security guarantee comes in the form of social conventions which foster the expectation of men to be bound to a one-sided provisioning contract, the modern message is clear for women; Independence from the necessity of men’s provisioning largely reduces or eliminates the uncertainty of  long-term security.

Or in other words, unilateral control of a woman’s hypergamy means Beta Bucks now takes a backseat to Alpha Fucks.

The Old-Order

The provisioning and personal investment in character, masculine virtue and ambition that made the, pre-sexual revolution, old order man an attractive prospect for a woman’s security-side hypergamy no longer carry the necessary appeal they did to ensure he would attract a marriageable woman. For women, the old order of attraction was based primarily on the security side of her hypergamous need because this was the most uncertain aspect she could secure in a social climate where her hypergamous decision making was more constrained.

Not unsurprisingly, women’s prioritizing long-term security inspired men to accommodate it by cultivating provider characteristics in themselves in order to be attractive. This isn’t to say the same Alpha side arousal we see in women’s sexual prioritization today wasn’t important, or tingle generating. Rather, the old social order prioritized women’s security needs since the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy was buffered by women’s general dependence on a man’s long-term provisioning.

The problem now is that, since the sexual revolution, the majority of (Beta) men are still raised and conditioned in this old-order context, based on an outmoded social contract that they were taught to ego-invest themselves into in order to best effect their own sexual strategy.

Although it’s the easiest dismissal fem-centric society would have anyone believe, only the most ignorant and self-important of men would ever come to the conclusion that they were owed (in the most transactional sense) the sexual and intimate affections of a woman in exchange for his personal investment, resources, dedication and acts of kindness. Certainly not men raised and conditioned to defer to a woman’s honor and respect, by default, above his own.

However, due to the old order social conditioning that taught them that a man in the unquestioning service of a woman’s security-side hypergamy should be the pinnacle of attraction, their conflict comes not in being denied an owed reward, but rather that rewards of sex, love, adoration, affection, respect, etc. the old-order convinced them they can and should earn is observably being offered to men who embody the exact opposite of his old order conditioning.

Relational Equity vs. Alpha Fucks

Deti picked up on this conflict in the comments of last week’s post:

We as human beings need to eliminate the words “deserve” and “entitled” from our vocabularies. Women are not entitled to anything from men; just as men are not entitled to anything from women. This entire “male sexual entitlement” strawman that our opponents have erected is just bull, plain and simple. Men do not go around claiming “entitlement” to sex; only psychopaths and mental defectives do that.

For anyone unacquainted with the fallacy of Relational Equity, I’d suggest reading that post to get some familiarity. Relational Equity is the idea that the more a man invests himself into his relationship, all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. equity he accrues for that dedication and commitment should be rationally appreciated by a woman and thus a buffer against the Alpha Fucks side of feminine hypergamy.

In essence this fallacy is the is rooted in the old order, security-side dependence of women’s hypergamy – the trust is that Beta Bucks will trump Alpha Fucks.

A man’s ego-investment into this fallacy is often the cause of his want to define Alpha in his own image, rather than remove his ego from the process and observe how women react and behave around men they actually have an Alpha arousal for. An example of this old order Beta disconnect is embodied in the person of Corey Worthington (a.k.a. the Alpha Buddah):

Guy’s like Corey infuriate men who have invested their self-worth in the accomplishments of what they think ought to be universally appreciated and rewarded. So when they’re confronted with a natural Alpha being undeservedly rewarded for brazenly acting out of accord with what they think the rules ought to be, they seethe with resentment. The natural response in the face of such an inconsistency is to redefine the term ‘Alpha’ to cater to themselves and their accomplishments as “real men” and exclude the perpetrator. The conflict then comes from seeing his new definition of Alpha not being rewarded or even appreciated as well as a natural Alpha attitude and the cycle continues. Your respect (or anyone else’s) for an Alpha has nothing to do with whether or not he possess an Alpha mindset. 3 failed marriages and 100+ lays has nothing to do with his having or not having an Alpha mindset. There are many well respected betas who’ve never had a passing thought of infidelity, or may have 300 lays either with prostitutes or because they possess fame or stunning good looks and women come to him by matter of course.

I wrote this almost three years ago, but the parallels of this ‘Alpha in his own image’ dynamic that Eliot Rodger shared with men conditioned in the old order of earning or meriting women’s intimacy are undeniable. Despite Arthur Chu’s male-apologetic mewling, it’s not that men like this feel ‘entitled to or ‘owed‘ sex with their idealized women, but they do feel their investments in a relational equity, and what they’ve been conditioned to believe should qualify them for women’s attentions have been betrayed to men who gratify the Alpha Fucks side of women’s hypergamous natures.

Feminine-Primary Assortive Mating

 “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”

― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

Ironically the best spokeswoman to illustrate the dichotomy between both sides of women’s hypergamy should be Sheryl Sandberg – the voice and embodiment of several generations of women raised on the Feminine Imperative and unilaterally unrestrained hypergamy. So oblivious is Sandberg to her feminine-primary, solipsistic confirmation of hypergamy that it never occurs to her that men would be anything but accommodating of her life-plan advice for younger generations of women. It never occurs to her that a “man who values fairness” would ever reject her (much less despise her) for the duplicity that women’s dualistic sexual strategy disenfranchises men of.

So you see, it’s not a red pill awakening that predisposes men to believing they’re ‘owed’, ‘entitled to’ or ‘deserving’ of sex, love, adoration, affection or anything else from women – it’s the generations of women like Sandberg who unabashedly exploit the old order conditioning of Beta Bucks men, while expecting them to dutifully accept their open or discrete cuckoldry with Alpha Fucks men – and then tell them that “nothing’s sexier” than their complacency in it with a wriggle of their nose.

 


The ‘Real’ Nice

fake_nice_guy

I once posed this question to the SoSuave forum:

Let us say, in a strange alternate world, women would LOVE you if you were a Nice Guy. In this world, you could do all the things you wanted to do. You could be sappy. You could write her poetry and SHE WOULD LOVE IT. The more of a Nice Guy you were, the more women in general would love and appreciate you.

And in this alternate world, the jerks and players would be the ones sneered at by women. If you were a jerk in this world, no woman would like you. If you were cocky, they would dismiss you immediately.

Would you remain a Nice Guy if you were in this alternate world?

I got a variety of answers ranging from the want for clearer, but no less useful terminologies,…

First off, I object to the labels. I know they’ve been used here and in the seduction community for a long time, but I don’t really believe in the stereotypes. I’m not a ‘nice guy’ or a jerk or a bad boy. Having said that and cleared the air, let’s go back to the stereotypes:

How many guys came here to this forum as “nice guys”? They were probably perfectly happy with themselves and only decided to change so they could do better with women. So they became assholes. Just to please women. I don’t see why they wouldn’t do the opposite in this “alternate reality”. I don’t care for the stereotypes. Half the guys on this forum think a “jerk” or a “douche” is a desireable thing to be. Something’s wrong with this picture. Somehow a “jerk” has become a guy with backbone who stands up for himself. 

The definition of a “nice guy” should just be a man who respects others as well as himself. But instead, in dating circles, “nice guy” means wimp.

…to the hope for Relational Equity and an appreciation for being ‘nice’…

I don’t think it’s that simple. You can be compassionate and kind without supplicating–and the whole “nice” thing isn’t really about kindness, it’s about supplicating and expecting something in return. “Nice” is really just synonymous with needy, unattractive behaviors, as I see it-it’s not even GENUINE kindness, as when you expect nothing in return.

To me, being an alpha “bad boy” just means going after what you want. It means pushing the envelope and being aggressive in pickup. It doesn’t mean being antisocial or violent, or being a dick to people. It often happens that an aggressive guy has these tendencies, but I don’t think they contribute to his success with women unless they bring him some fame, too. I think women DO have a capacity to appreciate kind gestures, and will certainly judge a man by how he treats his family, etc. The “protector of loved ones” is an attractive archetype to women. 

The guys that lose out are the ones that do “nice” things in the hopes that a woman will grow attracted to them. They let the women control the frame in this case, and act like children trying to please their mother. This is always an attraction killer–it doesn’t matter if they’re a jerk or an alpha in every other aspect of their life. Lots of really tough dudes are complete wussies around women. 

It is truly one of the cosmic ironies of the universe that women should completely lack the capacity to truly appreciate the niceties of men – yet still perpetually claim to desire those niceties.

With the notable exceptions of natural born Alphas, I believe most men would overwhelmingly default to being compassionate, empathic souls, steeped in romantic notions of chivalry, dedication and honor. Whether this sentiment is the result of a genuine dedication to principle or inspired by a hope that women will appreciate his sacrifices to principle and reciprocate with her intimacy is really a Crisis of Motive.

That was really the gist of my question – are guys just playing nice to get laid or is “niceness” (for lack of a better term) something deep rooted that they have to necessarily repress in order to be taken seriously as a sexual competitor because women would despise him were he to be as ‘nice’ as he really has the capacity for.

Most guys make lame attempts to redefine raw, natural, Alpha masculinity to fit into accord with all these noble qualities. Tragically women and reality prove them wrong at virtually every instance, but their fallback denial is an easy one (ironically provided for them by the Feminine Imperative) – “those women who don’t appreciate your niceness are just Damaged Women®, no quality woman would value an asshole above a real Nice Guy.”

Men are simply never rewarded for displays of these higher-self aspirations with genuine appreciation of women. They certainly appreciate them on a by-need basis, and as a ‘value added‘ benefit, but the esoteric, self-actualizing concerns men believe women should prioritize as primarily attractive aspects of themselves are never what they hope women will appreciate. If anything overly ‘nice’ men are punished for it, either in the instance or progressively over time.

The only way to garner true appreciation, true valuation, truly inspired displays of affection, from women is to covertly imply the risk of losing a high-value Man. Whether the man is even truly of a higher value is irrelevant, only the perception needs to be reinforced for her. Risk of loss is all that factors. Risk of losing an investment in optimizing hypergamy is weighed against her own perceived sexual market value and the effort needed to reinvest in another, potentially higher SMV man. Risk of loss is why her imagination furiously spins the wheel in her head.

That sounds horrible, but the truth often is. Women’s lack of appreciation for the more compassionate natures of men, and their consuming regard for rewarding men that appease their hypergamy is so well proven it’s become predictable enough to develop techniques and behavioral modifications to exploit it (i.e. Game). Most guys would like nothing better than to honestly play the loving, white knight, romantic who women bemoan a lack of in the world. Yet for every sonnet composed, every provision met, every compliment delivered and every well planned candlelit dinner conversation, there’s a woman feverishly fucking her Alpha bad boy in his low rent apartment for fear of losing him to the competition.

Attraction and Arousal


Occasionally we return to a common theme of debate with self-proclaimed ‘red pill women’ in various manosphere comment threads about how women may be attracted to certain characteristics men would like to identify as being ‘nice’, but no woman is aroused sexually by these qualities. As I’ve argued in the past, attraction and arousal are two separate elements of hypergamy. Alpha Fucks is arousing, Beta Bucks is attractive.

A couch surfing Alpha will be arousing enough to bang women indiscriminately despite his impoverished condition. He has no relational equity, and so frustrates the efforts of men who believe that the definition of Alpha ought to be based on the equity they hope women will appreciate. Women will return (even if just mentally) to the callous or cavalier Alpha because he arouses her, but she will stay faithful to her well-providing husband because what he offers is attractive to her.

This is why I say, by and large, women love most men for what they represent – once they cease to represent that, once they stumble in maintaining that, hypergamy is free to run. On a personal level this may be you losing a job or how you failed a shit test, on a meta scale it may be women’s social capacity to provide for themselves.

A lot of guys get lost in these definitions. They believe a woman at her word in what she finds attractive in a man, but then conflate this list of qualities (read any woman’s online dating profile) with what a woman finds arousing. While there may be attraction without arousal, there is never arousal by way of what makes a man attractive. Your respectability, sterling character and being good with kids doesn’t make you look any better when your shirt comes off.

The New Nice

There’s an interesting social convention that’s developed as Game-awareness has become more widespread. As with all social conventions it provides a convenient rationale for women to cling to in order to alleviate uncomfortable truths, but the dilemma of the Faux-Nice Guy has picked up a lot of steam in the feminist / feminine-primary set of women. I covered this a while back in Play Nice, but since then I’ve been reading more about how this convention is dovetailing into the re-imagining of a so called Rape Culture.

As women become more aware of Game (even if just peripherally) there’s developed a convenient distrust of men’s ‘Nice’ qualities. The dynamics I put forth in The Savior Schema all become suspect for what in essence is really a tit for tat exchange of services rendered for intimacy at a later date (once his niceties have proven his worth).

The problem with this is twofold, first, the guy’s relying on Beta Game, convinced that what women say they are attracted to is what they are also aroused by, believe that faux Nice Guys are blowing their chances with the women they believe will eventually come to love them for their earnest Niceness. If all these charlatan Nice Guys are jading their pool of prospective nice-appreciating women it ruins their Game. Consequently they get agitated by women doubting any man’s sincerity and by extension their own. This then leads to Nice Guy infighting and greater, more sincere displays of a Niceness that really only ruins their Game that much more.

Second, women’s doubt of a Nice Guy’s sincerity and unsolicited ‘niceness’ is really a red herring meant to distract men employing Nice Guy Game away from the point that they simply don’t find them all that attractive (and certainly not arousing). Being nice, supportive, dutiful and possessing all the intrinsic characteristics on her list of attractive traits in the hope of proving his worth and qualifying for her intimate acceptance is really one long Appeal to a Woman’s Reason. It’s very convenient for a woman to enjoy (and often become dependent upon) the services a Nice Guy renders to her, but when that Nice Guy is discovered to have a sexual interest in her the “you weren’t really nice, you just expected something sexual in return” social convention finds its use.

Women have been aware of this Nice Guy Game, prequalification schema for generations, because it used to actually work in a time and culture where the Beta Bucks / parental investment side of women’s hypergamy was the predominant factor for determining of a man’s intimate acceptability. The problem now is that the deductive reasoning men use – find out what women want in order to become intimate, become it and solve the problem – in order to achieve a woman’s intimacy comes from an old set of books that no woman is still using. However the reliance on the responsibilities outlined in that first set of books are still useful when it comes to control the intents and actions of men.

Chivalry is an anachronism in a post-feminist society, particularly where equalism is concerned, but it’s a liability when it’s useful to the feminine imperative. It may be a man’s duty not to expect sex in exchange for his niceties and services, but when his chivalry is useful to her then it becomes his responsibility.


Homosexuality

Sexual-fluidity

Alright readers, please return your seats and tray tables to their upright position and make sure your seat belts are securely fastened, this is going to be a bumpy ride. I’ve had a good portion of this post in the ‘can’ so to speak for some time, but as of yet hadn’t the purpose to publish it. I understand the potential for misunderstanding this essay is going to have, but as most of you know, unplugging guys from the Matrix is dirty work, and I’ve always been one who likes to get his hands dirty.

In the time I’ve spent writing in the manosphere both as a blog writer and a forum commenter I can only remember a handful of instances where I’ve read any attempt to define how Game is applicable to homosexuals. For the most part, personal ideologies tend to prevent Game-aware writers from objectively addressing how homosexuality actually validates a universal application of Game.

It’s kind of a shame that a lot of Game proponents would rather avoid how a larger understanding of Game is confirmed in homosexual relations. I’ll admit to some hesitancy as well, however one of my earliest posts, Sexual Fluidity, addressed exactly how an evolved  template for heterosexual gender roles is still the applicable one in homosexual relations. I also defined the dominant / submissive dynamic all intergender relations establish in Master & Servant.

Before I get myself into the inevitable morass this post will likely generate, please have a read of the Rational Male policy about morality. My purpose in setting this out isn’t to persecute anyone, nor should an objective grasp of Game be limited by personal ideologies. I realize bias in both observations and interpretation is always going to be unavoidable – I can’t scroll through my Twitter feed without reading personal perspectives regarding gay marriage these days. Just understand my point here isn’t to pass judgement on anyone (readers will do this for themselves), but rather to illustrate the universality of Game and gender dynamics.

Finally, I have to add that my interpretations here are going to be limited by experience. I tend to write from an authoritative perspective in all my posts, however, my interpretations here are rooted in my knowledge of Game and intergender dynamics not firsthand knowledge. I’m not gay so if you think my perspective is incomplete or I haven’t addressed something you think is important please feel free to make me aware of them in the comments hereafter. This is very much a work in progress and I’m open to anyone’s corrections.

The following story was related to me via email about 4 months ago by a gay male reader. With his permission, I’m going to repost it here, but I’ve changed his name to ensure his anonymity:

Hello Rollo,

I just wanted to start this message off by saying I absolutely love your blog and I am now in the process of ordering your book off of Amazon.  However, I have a very interesting question I was wondering if you could assist me with.

I am a 23 y/o gay male, and as you may have guessed, my best friend is an attractive 22 year old female. We have both dabbled in stripping since we were 18 but as of recently we have begun to make the transition to “sugar babies” to pay off our tuition.

The mind games involved in crafting a sense of “oneitis” are certainly true. Prior to even finding your blog, we have been exercising these realizations with great success. Thus, I was very excited to see a blog with 100% similar views to how we both view the standard STRAIGHT relationship.

See where I’m going with this? Men and women have clearly defined “roles” and personality types due to years of evolution. If you are a young and attractive female, men almost instinctively understand the need to compensate with cash and or providing a sense of security…especially if you are playing your cards correctly.

The issue at hand for me, however, is that the same principles don’t seem to be working. “Strip club” hustle is far different than the mind games involved in a relationship, and when I do strip, I leave with a healthy amount of money. However, when trying to cross over into “sugar baby” territory, I feel as though I am playing with a different set of rules.

Essentially, gay people are a hybrid between man and woman. I feel as though, in some cases, I posses a very “feminine” view about certain things, but due to my extensive testing and researching of human psychology, I have adopted a much more “alpha” and “masculine” personality type as well. This “alpha male” persona originally started out as an “act”, but through sheer perseverance I can honestly say it is a part of who I am now. Since then, I have a long list of gay men who want to date me. In hook-up culture gay world, finding sex is as easy as signing onto a website or downloading an application. Thus, getting a gay male to actually feel the need to “date you” is an art form in itself.

However – because gay men operate off of feminine mindsets by DEFAULT, they are attracted to my Alpha personality. But due to my “alpha”, and or “male” personality type, they simultaneously do not feel the need to spoil me with cash. I’ve hung out with a multitude of gay millionaires, I’ve gone on a few vacations, etc. however, I can’t achieve the same success as my friend.

She has had “allowances” as high as 3,000 a week…has had her tuition paid off, and has been purchased a brand new 30,000 car. She’s been all over the world. Granted, she “understands” the game and plays it well. However, I want a slice of this pie.

Do you have any experience with gay/lesbian mind sets? Do you have any tips to cross over from “alpha boyfriend” to “spoil me”. I have been having a difficult time in regard to hustling. Gay men, ironically, prefer “normal” relationships. Unlike straight men who are more than willing to spend some extra money to jump to the next league, if you understand what I mean.

It seems as though I must fabricate a “loving relationship” for 6 months before I am ever going to be handed any sort of allowance. The “trip for two” vacations are fun, but at the same time, I do not actually ENJOY their presence and they can sense this. Any suggestions?

 

First off, any ‘advice’ I could offer is going to come from my understanding of heterosexual dynamics. After having worked in the liquor and casino industries for almost 20 years now, I’ve had the opportunity to work with and market to a gay demographic, and to this day I still have homosexual friends I’ve made who hit me up for advice. I’ll tell you what I tell them, Game is universal, but I think the disconnect comes from thinking that being homosexual in someway disqualifies a person from the strictures of how the sexes evolved and how they interact.

Naturally Mark’s stripper girlfriend will be the control for this study; as with most attractive strippers she understands (and capitalizes on) the natural dominant-submissive gender architecture, and the provisioning / protector aspect men innately apply to a high SMV mating prospect. Mark also correctly identifies how ONEitis influences and reinforces this dynamic, as well as its utility to transactional sex.

I will however disagree with Mark’s assertion that homosexuals are in some way ‘hybrids’ of men and women. If you read through my Sexual Fluidity post you’ll come to realize that even in homosexual relationships there is almost invariably a dominant and submissive partner, either of which reflect the evolved natures of intersexual relations – dominant, masculine male to submissive, feminine female. It’s not that a homosexual is gender-role indecisive or is some hybrid of the two, it’s about determining who’ll be the male and who’ll be the female.

In many posts I’ve made the point that the soul-mate myth and the fallacy of the ONE are founded in a popularized ideological normalization. For instance the Carl Jung idea of anima & animus is so embedded in our culture that we take it for granted. For the past 70+ years popular culture has operated from an unquestioned idea that men and women possess both masculine and feminine aspects of their personalities. Why? Because at some point Carl Jung proposed the theory and a culture embraced and perpetuated the idea that “men ought to get in touch with their feminine sides” as a means to an end for another agenda. No one even thinks to question the origins of this concept much less the veracity of it. Small wonder that so many women and too many men get agitated and hostile at the idea that this basic of their identity understanding could very well be horse shit.

I had a very depressive lesbian friend once cry to me about how she kept falling in love with various girlfriends, but the template for her breakups was always the same. She was a very tall, and attractive, short haired woman. The vibe she projected was obvious to anyone, a butch, dominant extroverted impression, however when she got into (or thought she was getting into) a monogamous relationship – something she very much wanted – she would do what most Beta men do in their LTRs. She presented an ‘Alpha’ dominance that appealed to more fem lesbians, but when she got into an LTR that Alpha presence faded to fem Beta dependence much in the same way men who learn Game will “backslide” to their comfortable Beta ways – and much to the disappointment of a woman who believed she was going to play the submissive role.

And just like a backsliding Beta, my lesbian friend’s girlfriends would predictably leave the LTR, confused as to why they’d been sold into playing the dominant / decisive role with a woman who appeared to be the pants wearing partner. Cue the heartrending ONEitis endemic to a Beta mindset, get depressed and repeat the cycle again.

The sexes may be the same, but the roles either play don’t. This dynamic is perhaps the most damning indictment of gender equalism. Even when both sexes are the same the Game doesn’t change. For all the equalist cries that men and women are fundamentally identical, just with different plumbing, the nature of a committed relationship still reverts to an unequal dom/sub footing.

Mark’s frustration rests in his inability to convince the men he ‘hustles’ to get ONEitis for him. I’d suggest that part of this is due simply to men’s sexual strategy and appetites being prone to variety, but also because he can’t pull off the submissive, provisioning-necessitousness message his girlfriend naturally does. No gay man (as yet) wants to assume this role with him, but damn near every heterosexual man with a heartbeat and normal testosterone levels will fall in line to provide for an SMV peaked 22 year old woman with a body nice enough to be a high end stripper.

A Gay Perspective

For the record I believe homosexuality is a nature vs. nurture issue.

So with that in mind, here is the Rollo Tomassi take on homosexuality: Until such time as biologists can empirically prove a ‘gay gene’ (or genetic combinations that predispose a person to homosexuality), I believe the root of homosexual sexual expression is behavioral. Human beings have a biological need for sexual expression: masturbation is usually the first, then we move on to more complex socio-sexual behaviors. In short, we like to get off. It feels good, it’s a stress relief and orgasm (plus the resulting endorphin release) has health benefits.

Sexual behaviors and patterns become progressively associated with environmental prompts, situational stimuli, as well as a multitude of reward/reinforcers and punishments depending upon the social acceptability or unacceptability of the that sexual behavior.

That’s not to say there isn’t a biological aspect to this; when I see a semi-nude woman (conditioned stimuli) I get a hard-on (unconditioned response). My body reacts in preparation for sexual behavior by flushing my system with a cocktail of hormones that increase my heart rate, heighten my senses and gives me an erection. However it’s the associations, and prior rewards or punishments, that prompt the biological response. For instance, why do I get turned on by a naked Jessica Alba, but disgusted (physical revulsion) when I see a maggot filled animal carcass?

When I hear homosexuals tell me “I can’t help being gay”, I believe them.

Through any set of circumstances their sexual expression has been reinforced to the point where it has become normal for them – they literally can’t help but be gay, because that’s what prompts sexual response for them. They also, literally, do not make a choice to be gay; their sexual response was brought about from circumstances that rewarded (or more so than from what wasn’t) that behavior. The obvious criticism is that for the most part homosexuality is viewed as a deviant or perverted sexual expression and is discouraged. However it’s just this taboo that makes the sexual expression an even more tantalizing reward.

As I stated above, sexual release is a biological need. Heterosexual men entering a male only prison population, can and do engage in homosexuality and then resume heterosexual behavior upon their reintroduction to society. Are they gay or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression they had available to them in their given environment?

What about bi-sexuality? Do bisexuals have only half the genetic material to make them half-gay or has their sexual conditioning been such that they’re aroused by both genders?

There are some people born with both male and female sexual plumbing, what gender should they pursue in life? Is this their choice when you consider it’s their parents who decide to raise the child as a boy or a girl?

Feminist Gender Decisions 

The problem with even attempting to define gender into a genetic vs. behavioral answer is further complicated by the people trying to define it. Just by even asking the question “Is homosexuality a choice or a genetic predisposition?” casts the one asking into one camp or another. You’re either a ‘homophobe’ or you’re an immoral hedonist by choice. Both sides are equally polarized and equally misled because they aren’t encouraged to look for answers, and when they do, the bias of their motivations for doing so become suspect.

Is gender itself biological or behavioral? This is an issue that Feminism struggles with to this day.

If gender is primarily a learned behavior then the issue of being oppressed by design is valid, but homosexuality as a genetic cause is invalid (or certainly less valid). But then, women’s biology, and the degree to which their innate hormonal differences play (estrogen, oxytocin) and the behavior manifested due to them, in molding their gender must also be taken into consideration.

The problem with asking questions like this now becomes one of polarization. Neither homosexuals nor moralists really want a definitive answer as to whether homosexuality is genetic or behavioral. The longer it goes unanswered, the longer each has to effect their own agenda. If homosexuality is proven not to be primarily genetic, then homosexuals as an oppressed underclass lose in their bid to make their status a civil rights issue.

If it is proven to be genetic, then moralists are forced to reevaluate not only their position on homosexuality, but also their philosophical concepts of predestination and personal accountability. So it’s really not in the interests of either faction to look for real definitive answers. The longer we all remain in limbo the longer either have to try to change minds.

You see feminism relies on the idea that gender is taught, not innate. It’s a classic nature vs. nurture paradox. And they’ll use this conveniently and interchangably.

To feminists, little girls are little girls because society defines their gender in their upbringing (play with this pink dolly), but ask them to explain why gays are gay and it has nothing to do with their behavior or their environment, now it’s genetic – they can’t help it they, were born that way. The problem is that this contradicts itself. If gender is learned, then homosexuality is all learned/reinforced behavior, but if gender is inherent then feminism is a sham as women are fighting against a psycho-biological order. They can’t help it, women were born that way, right?

Gay Animals

Yes, homosexuality does have parallels in other animals. However, what’s conveniently overlooked is that most instances of this animal homosexuality often occurs in social animals that rely on a collective group for survival (like penguins). Homosexuality is almost non-existent in predatory animals. Among these social animals, homosexuality is generally exhibited in higher frequency only when the population of the collective has excessively higher proportions of one sex. Homosexuality is also exhibited in lower order animals such as insects and amphibians, however it’s postulated that this homosexuality is an instinctive survival mechanism necessary to prompt sexual amorphism. Certain animals (particularly fish and amphibians) have an ability to change sex (sexual amorphism) when high frequency or exclusively same sex members dominate a breeding population.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to define homosexuality based on the amorphous breeding habits of fire toed newts, but in principle there may be environmental triggers that prompt homosexual behavior.

Earlier I made the example of heterosexual prisoners resorting to homosexual behavior in jail and then returning to heterosexual behavior after their release. Is that person a “homosexual”, or were they simply resorting to the only sexual expression available to them in their controlled environment? Are post-Wall women who resort to Sexual Fluidity due to an inability to find a suitably dominant male really gay or are they also responding to the pressures of the sexual environment they find themselves in? Is the (subjectively) higher incidence of human homosexuality a response to environmental pressures that have developed in the past 60 years? With greater female “independence” and feminine hypergamy dictating the social / breeding  environment in the sexual marketplace I think a strong case could be made.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,329 other followers