Category Archives: Alpha

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.


Preventative Medicine – Part IV

prevent_4

From The Myth of the Quality Woman:

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

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

Print

The Schism

An interesting internal schism occurs for women during the latter half of the Security and through the Developmental Phase. The first aspect of this psychological schism is a drive for an unalterable sense of security. As she matures, the priority for an enduring security intensifies with each child she bears and / or each life incident where that degree of security is tested.

For the married woman who consolidated upon her best available provider male, this intensification usually manifests itself as a ceaseless series of shit testing, not only over his capacity to consistently deliver an ever increasing need for that provisioning, but also the Alpha suitability she convinced herself that he would mature into later. The primary conflict for her during these phases is that her provider male’s SMV Alpha potential never quite looks like or compares with the idealized memories of the Alpha men she entertained in her party years.

I’ve written several essays regarding the dynamics of the Alpha Widow, but at no other phase of a woman’s life is she more prone to mourning a prior Alpha lover than when she enters the Developmental stage. This is when the security a woman was so incensed to in her Epiphany Phase becomes a burden, but still a necessity of her life. Unless a man has reinvented himself and capitalized on his SMV potential so significantly as to separate himself from the prior impression of ‘providership acceptability’ a woman initially expected of him, five minutes of Alpha experience will always trump 5-10 years of Beta dedication.

If women can realize the Alpha Fucks aspect of hypergamy during her party years, and then realize the Beta Bucks aspects of hypergamy after the Epiphany Phase, then the internal schism a woman experiences in her Developmental phase becomes the difference between her reconciling those two aspects within the man she’s currently paired with.

The second aspect of this schism is a marked re-interest in the Alpha attributes of either the man she’s currently paired with, or the Alpha attributes of men outside that pairing. This side of the schism is particularly frustrating for both Alpha and Beta men paired to a woman experiencing it.

Deal with It

The more an Alpha man actualizes his SMV potential – through maintained (or improved)  looks, career, maturity, affluence, status, etc. – the more a woman’s need for enduring security becomes threatened as her SMV consistently decays in comparison. A woman’s logical response to this new form of competition anxiety usually manifests in two ways.

The first being an intense motivation to domineer and control her relationship by placing herself in a dominant role. She assumes (or attempts to assume) headship of the marriage / relationship by way of convenient conviction or from a self-created sense of her husband’s (really all men’s) untrustworthiness bolstered by social conventions that insist women need to be the head of the house (i.e. “she’s the real boss, heheh”). Her insecurity about her own comparative SMV manifests in her demanding he ‘do the right thing’ and limit his SMV potential for the sake of a more important role as her (and their family’s) dutiful provider.

Of course the problem with this is that a man acquiescing to such dominance not only loses out on his capacity to maximize his SMV peak potential, but also confirms for his wife that his status isn’t as Alpha as he’s confident it is. This Alpha disenfranchisement will play a significant part in a woman’s Redevelopment phase.

The second logical response is apathy and resentment. A disconnect from her SMV peaking mate may seem like a woman’s resigning herself to her non-competitive SMV fate, but it serves the same purpose as a woman’s insistence for relational dominance – an assurance of continued security and provisioning as the result of his limiting his SMV potential. This apathy is, by design, paired with the guilt that her mate is more focused on his own self-development than the importance he should be applying to her and any family. The result becomes one of a man chasing his own tail in order to satisfy this passive insecurity and failing passive shit tests.

In either instance the seeds of a man’s decline are rooted in his ability to identify this schism in relation to how it aligns with his SMV potential at the same time it affects his long term partner. The problem with the schism is that for all the limitations a woman would emplace against a man actualizing his SMV potential, the same limitations will also constitute a significant part of her justification for being dissatisfied with him during her Redevelopment phase.

Redevelopment / Reinsurance

The Redevelopment phase can either be a time of relational turmoil or one of a woman reconciling her hypergamous balance with the man she’s paired with.

The security side of this hypergamous balance has been established for her long term satisfaction and the Alpha reinterest begins to chafe at the ubiquitous certainty of that security. Bear in mind that the source of this certainty need not come from a provider male. There are a lot of eventualities to account for. It may come from a ‘never married’ woman’s capacity to provide it for herself, the financial support levied from a past husband(s) or father(s) of her children, government subsidies, family money, or any combination thereof.

In any event, while security may still be an important concern, the same security becomes stifling for her as she retrospectively contemplates the ‘excitement’ she used to enjoy with former, now contextually Alpha, lovers, or perhaps the “man her husband used to be”.

Dalrock has long covered the topic of women entering the Eat, Pray, Love phase very well, coining the term “She was unhaaaaaappy,..” This is the justification call of for women entering the Redevelopment phase.

Depending on when she consolidated on long term monogamy, her kids are at, or almost at an age of real independence. It may even be at the “20 year itch” empty nest stage I described in the last essay, but there is a fundamental reassessment of the man she’s paired with and how his now realized SMV potential has either proved a good bet, or a disastrous misstep. And as with the various prior phases of maturity, she finds there are convenient social conventions already pre-established for her to help justify the decisions she’ll make as a result of this reassessment.

The binding, cooperative arrangements of childrearing that necessitated her drive for security gradually decrease in importance, giving way to a new urgency – pairing with someone “she really connects with” before her (imagined or otherwise) SMV / looks are entirely spent on the provider male she now loathes the idea of spending a future with. This is the turning point at which most Beta men, hopefully reliant upon the false notions of Relational Equity, find themselves on the sharp end of the feminine hypergamy they cognitively dissociated themselves from for a lifetime.

It’s not all doom and gloom however. Depending upon a woman’s degree of self-awareness and realism about her late-stage SMV, the decision may simply be one of pragmatism – she understands she’s with the man who can now best embody a hypergamic balance for her in the long term – or she genuinely has a long term (feminine defined) love and affinity for the man she’s paired with, who finally Just Gets It. Other considerations factor in as well; it’s entirely possible his SMV peak will endure longer than her reassessment of him will take to determine, religious conviction may play a (albeit sometimes convenient) part in this reassessment, or she may realistically assess her own SMV as decayed to a point where staying with her provider male is her only tenable option.

There’s an interesting trend in the divorcing schedules of Baby Boomers that strongly correlate with this Redevelopment phase reassessment I’ve described here – it’s called Grey Divorce:

Americans over 50 are twice as likely to get divorced as people of that age were 20 years ago.

Jim Campbell, 55, of Boulder, Colo., says he and his wife grew apart after 34 years together. “The No. 1 best thing in common that my ex-wife and I had was raising kids,” Campbell says. When their two sons grew up, he says, “we just didn’t have enough activities, passions, interests that were in common. And when the boys were gone, that just became more and more — to me — obvious.”

As is the wont for a feminized media, the focus is on men who divorce their wives, but statistically it’s women who initiate over 70% of all divorces. It’s important to bear that in mind when considering the psychological impetus for women’s Redevelopment phase. In spite of that oversight, the ‘grey divorce’ stats dovetail with this mid-late life reassessment.

In the interest of fairness, a woman can also find herself forced into this Redevelopment as the result of a man who’d come to realize his SMV peak and became actively aware of how hypergamy had influenced his decisions for him. There is a minority of men who take the red pill or otherwise and exit a marriage they’d been ‘settled’ on for, or they may in fact want to redevelop themselves for the same reasons women make the reassessment and capitalize on what value their SMV has.

Regardless of how she comes to it, nothing is more daunting for a woman than to reenter the sexual market place at such a severe disadvantage. After the Wall, women dread the idea of having to start over in a sexual market place in which they are grossly outmatched, so even the slightest deviation from the ‘security forever’ script becomes a major ego threat. If that security is more or less assured, there are feminine social conventions ready to make that prospect more palatable. ’40 is the new 30′, “you still got it”, and of course the strong independent woman® brand offers a plan for ‘cougardom’.

Depending on a woman’s relative SMV (that is to say amongst her generation’s peers) she may entertain these convention more or less successfully, but this reinvention of a woman’s party years, still suffers from a need to reestablish a semblance of security after a point. While it may be ‘exciting’ to relearn how to maneuver in a new SMP, the underlying desire is still one of security.

Late Phase Security

Finally we come full circle and back to, an albeit new interpretation of, the same security a woman sought after her Epiphany Phase. During this late phase, that may last from a woman’s late 40’s, 50’s or even indefinitely, as a result of an inevitable SMV decay, the security side of a woman’s hypergamy swings into its final, permanent, position. It’s important to make the distinction that this security isn’t necessarily founded on financial provisioning, but rather an emotional, intimate dependence and acceptance for a woman from an acceptably masculine man – often in spite of a past that she would rather be (expects to be) forgiven for by virtue of her age and her perceived experiences.

While she may experience some desire to live vicariously through the experiences her now grown daughters or younger female friends in various phases themselves, her message to them is one of precaution, but tempered with the subconscious awareness of how hypergamy has set the frame for her past. This is the phase during which (hypocritically) women tend to cognitively rewrite their past for what they believe should be the benefit of younger women.

As an aside, I should point out that with the advent of the internet and the permanency of all things digital, this is becoming increasingly more difficult for mid-life women.

This is the phase during which a woman not only desires secure acceptance of who she is from a suitable man, but it’s also the phase she attempts to create a secure social paradigm for herself. To be sure this drive is firmly couched in a woman’s innate solipsism, but her desire for security extends beyond a want for her own personal, assured security, and to woman-kind in whole.

Women in this phase may be concerned for the futures of their daughters – and sons who may come into contact with women following the same hypergamic paradigm she used on their fathers – but the concern is voiced for society and women as a whole. Rarely is this social concern an admission or testament of her own regret, but rather it’s something she must address to reconcile the parts of her past, the undeniable results of her hypergamy, that  she can’t escape.

Once menopause ensues that retrospective need becomes more urgent.

Conclusion

I understand that this series probably wont address particular personal issues some readers will want it to, but that’s what comment threads are for. As I stated when I started this series, I could probably write a more comprehensive book about this entire process – I may do just that at some point.

I also understand that while I can provide this outline, it doesn’t really go in depth into how a man might use this knowledge to his best advantage with a particular woman. However, my hope is that it will put certain behaviors and mindsets you find in a woman, and how they align or don’t align with this outline, into something more understandable for your individual experience. This is in no way comprehensive or meant to account for every woman’s circumstance, but rather to help a man with what he can expect in various phases.

It’s preventative medicine, not a cure to any particular disease.

Thanks for sticking with this.

RT


Preventative Medicine – Part I

Red Capsules 1

If the red pill and Game-awareness have a lasting effect of any future significance, my hope is that the red pill becomes preventative medicine for young men’s feminized conditioning.

This awareness is the single greatest threat to the feminine imperative and feminine social primacy. I’ve covered aspects of this prevention in Hear Me Now, Believe Me Later, but this post was more of an after-the-fact perspective from older men’s experiences, and how they wish they’d have known about the red pill, Game and the intergender dynamics I’ve written about for the past 12 years of my writing.

When I wrote the now seminal post of Navigating the SMP and introduced the comparative SMV chart I had no idea how influential (and usefully accurate) it would be. My hope then was to educate (albeit a bit tongue in cheek) a younger generation of red pill men about the basic outline of how men and women’s sexual market value waxes and wanes during phases of each sex’s lifetime. This post – and more than few subsequent ones – was prompted by the desire to have an outline of what young men should anticipate in a contemporary, westernized gender landscape.

For as much as the critics of that SMV outline would have you believe it’s just an effort in wishful thinking on the part of older men convincing themselves of a higher sexual market value, the salient message of that graph is an uncomfortable exposing of the strategies women use in optimizing hypergamy over the course of their lifetimes. When considered chronologically, many identifiable patterns become apparent both in women’s motivations and behaviors at or around distinct phases of a woman’s life.

Depending upon her capacity to fulfill them at any particular phase (attractiveness), we can get a better overall idea of what is motivating a particular woman during that period of her life and adjust Game and/or expectations accordingly to a Man’s best advantage.

Roissy wrote a fantastic piece about the difficulty of Gaming women by age brackets back in 2010, and I’m going to refer readers with a mind for Game to cross reference this article while reading what I propose here. With a better understanding of these phases, and the SMV particulars of those phases, a Man can more easily adjust his Game, maintain frame, apply Amused Mastery, and host of other red pill / Game applications covertly and confidently with a reasonable expectation of outcome, or a better understanding of the traps that may await him.

One common understanding most men had with regards to the woman in my Saving the Best post, and how her rationalizations of her past and present sexual behaviors affected the man considering divorcing her, was that she was subject to conditions at particular periods in her life which motivated her to those behaviors. I’m not sure it’s realistic to expect the blue pill guy in that situation to have seen her sexual hangups and self-consciousness with him as the red flags that we can being dissociated with his condition – however, there is a certain awareness that comes with the red pill that helps us better understand what those flags are. The armchair counseling we give him is that he should’ve known that she was looking for her Beta provider when he married her – it was at that woman’s phase of life when women are looking to consolidate on her own long term security.

But can we really expect this from a guy who in all likelihood based his decisions to marry her on false presumptions and a thoroughly blue pill hope that she’d ‘come around’ to being more sexual with him later in their marriage? Can we really expect him to know what her motivations were then for her long term security when he’d never had the benefit of ever having those motivations spelled out for him by the red pill?

It’s with this in mind that I’m presenting that outline here.

Print

Click for an expanded view.

What I’ve constructed is a loose and generalized chronology of how women effect their hypergamy over the course of typical woman’s life between the ages of 15 and 50. I’m fully prepared for the same outcries of generalizations and NAWALT that the infamous SMV graph inspired, but understand this, before any woman or femen comes up with those predictable objections, this is an outline; variables like culture, ethnicity, moralism, socio-economic status and outlying circumstance are all factors to consider when evaluating the motivations of any woman. This timeline however is intended as a roadmap to follow to get a better understanding of what motivates women at particular phases of their lives and hopefully help men to better prepare themselves for the strategies women will use to optimize hypergamy during those phases.

Understanding Hypergamy

Before we get too involved in this chronology it’s important to get a good idea of how hypergamy motivates women during these phases. A lot of the manosphere likes to define hypergamy as a woman getting the best bang for her attractiveness buck, but this is only one side of hypergamy. Using the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks principle of women’s dualistic sexual strategy it becomes clear that there is a drive to balance hypergamy between these two impulses. As I stated in Schedules of Mating, hypergamy wants to have both sides of the AF/BB equation satisfied by the same man, but rarely is this dualistic satisfaction met in the same individual.

It’s my belief that a drive for hypergamic optimization exists in both the impulse to secure the best genes (sexy son theory – Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning / emotional investment (parental investment – Beta Bucks) a woman’s attractiveness can be leveraged for. The problem then is one of leveraging her attractiveness relative to any particular phase of her life and the circumstance that phase dictates for her. Needless to say a woman’s physical conditions, her personal decisions and modern social pressures will influence this ‘balancing act’ (careerism, feminism, religious conviction, etc.), but I think it’s only half correct to apply hypergamy only to the Alpha Fucks side of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.

It’s also important to consider that, from an evolutionary standpoint, hypergamy always seeks an optimization of either side of the AFBB motives that is better than any individual woman’s attractiveness realistically warrants. Keep in mind that modern social pressures (social media etc.) exacerbate this, and further distort a woman’s realistic evaluation of her own SMV at any given phase of her life. The most secure, monogamous attachments women will make are with Men they perceive are 1 to 2 degrees above what she perceives is her own relative SMV.

The Teen Phase

I ostensibly began the relative SMV graph at age 15 since this is about the post-pubescent age during which girls come into their maturation and teenage boys begin to take a real awareness of them. As you’ll see on the overall timeline, Alpha characteristics with regards to teenage attraction cues are largely based on physical attributes and prowess. These physical arousal cues girls find primarily attractive in adolescent boys (later men) will continue for the better part of a woman’s life, but during a girl’s formative years her foremost attraction is for the ‘hawt guy’ with a good body, the correct eye color and the right haircut.

Between the ages of 15 and 25 women associate and prioritize men according to their physical features. Even a relatively introverted guy with a Beta mindset and/or a brooding ‘creative’ personality can still be considered Alpha if his physical presence meets a girl’s archetypal attraction profile.

The main reasoning for this is fairly obvious in that physical cues (though also influenced externally) are primarily innate. This physical interest from adolescence through young adulthood is the top prioritization in attraction. These physical attraction / arousal cues are intrinsic; extrinsic attraction cues such as status / performance do factor in progressively as a woman matures, but the priority is the physical, and other extrinsic factors (status, Alpha confidence, Game, etc.), while definitely beneficial, are prioritized lower by the simple fact that a girl lacks any real experience of a guy with Game or the need for provisioning.

Long term provisioning potential during this phase is rarely even an afterthought for a young woman. From adolescence forward a woman’s dualistic sexual strategy primarily revolves around short term breeding opportunity – Alpha fucks. This can be attributed to a girl/young woman’s provisioning needs being relatively accommodated for by family, the state in some effect or even her own self-provisioning, as well as the breeding urgency that comes with hormones and youth.

I’ll add the caveat here that a woman’s prioritization of the physical is inversely proportional to the degree to which her provisioning needs are being met beyond seeking a mate or mating opportunities. In other words, if thing aren’t secure at home (Daddy Issues) an adolescent girl physically and mentally prepares herself for a long term mate earlier than when a solid masculine father is present in her life and the home. Further reading on the physical aspects of this phenomenon can be found here.

The short version for teenage Game (when you’re in high school) is that looks, physique and physical prowess are a woman’s attraction priority. This priority will build a foundation for her attraction cues later as she matures, but the primary importance is looks and performance.

The Break Phase

I’ve added this phase here because it’s become an increasingly too common, and potentially damaging, occurrence amongst young men I’ve counseled. Generally the Break Phase comes at or about the time of a young woman’s senior year (or shortly after) of high school when she’s forced into a conflict between continuing a monogamous relationship she began in her teenage years, and severing it as college or a simple want for ‘freedom’ looms closer as she approaches young adulthood, graduation and possibly moving away from her home for an indefinite period.

This is a major frustration for Beta minded young men given to a feminized conditioning that convinces them they’ll be rewarded for loyalty, support and building relational equity with a girl. I’m highlighting this phase because often enough it’s at this beginning point young men are prepared to compromise their life’s ambitions to play a role that their feminine conditioning predisposes them for. The danger being long term life decisions made in order to maintain a relationship he believes his sacrifices will be rewarded for in favor of personal goals or developing passions and personal potential.

Here is the warning for any late teen / early adult man: This is generally the point at which you’ll have to make some real personal assessments of yourself if you have a girlfriend. This will be the first test of the red pill versus your feminized conditioning. Most blue pill guys entertain the ‘invisible friend’ of an LDR (long distance relationship) for the first time at this juncture, or they alter their educational priorities to accommodate maintaining their relationship.

Statistically the girlfriend you expected to build a Disney-story life with will break up with you as her options expand while yours constrict (due to prioritizing her goals above your own). The decisions you make at this stage are up to you, but understand (barring personal convictions) this stage will come as a woman’s SMV begins it’s rapid ascent and along with it opportunities she’s been scarcely aware of until now.

The Party Years

The five year span between 20 and 25 are what I euphemistically call a woman’s ‘Party Years’. It’s at this stage women generally experience their peak SMV (22-23 y.o.), and as I stated in Navigating the SMP, at no other point in a woman’s life will so many socio-sexual options be available to her. A lot of manosphere moralists believe that women ought to marry and get pregnant during the party years since this is the point of peak fertility as well as physical beauty, and in the not so distant, pre-sexual revolution past this certainly made sense. However, under the social conditions of the last 50+ years, women’s priorities have changed.

The available opportunities – social, sexual, educational and career-wise – that a woman experiences during these years are afforded to her in relation to her SMV. At no point will you find a woman more cocky and self-assured of her predominance in society according to the option she enjoys relative to her attractiveness. Her personal image will be one based on merit, and while it’s certainly possible she is talented and/or intelligent, her opportunities are predicated on her attractiveness and the leverage it has on other’s (men and women) decision making.

The physical arousal priorities she had in high school remain a top attraction priority, however, as she matures into the new experiences her SMV peak affords her, status, and later affluence (wealth or potential provisioning) start getting added to the attraction mix. As women learn the utility of their relative SMV, and begin to understand a future need for long term provisioning (on some level of consciousness) they come to understand the transactional nature of their sexual agency.

It’s during the party years that women begin to prefer ‘dating’ men older than themselves. Generally this is between a 5-7 year difference, however Roissy postulated that even more mature men still have potential depending upon their own SMV:

Hard to believe, but it is often easier to bed a very young woman than an older woman, if you are an older man. This is because 20-40% of women are specifically attracted to older men. It is hard-wired in them, and this hard-wiring can be reinforced by poor family upbringing resulting from divorce of parents or absentee fathers. Single moms are the greatest source of future generations of slutty daughters the world has ever known.

During the party years, hypergamy is still firmly rooted in physical attraction / short term mating cues, however, women begin to develop an appreciation for personality cues of confidence and (Alpha) character as it relates to her long term investment. Later in the party years a woman’s hypergamy leads her to look for the Alpha bad boy who might also be molded (tamed) into her long term ideal – this is the Tarzan Effect, the want for an optimized balance of hypergamic interests in the same Alpha male. The idea is one that an Alpha Man might be tamed, in some cases coerced via pregnancy, into assuming the providership role the other half of her sexual strategy demands.

One point of attraction older men (who capitalize on their SMV potential) have is that their capacity to provide for more than themselves, and still maintain an above average physique, tends to be a form of preselection for this hypergamic balance as women mature past the latter part of their party years.

Just to be clear, as a woman becomes more cognizant of her decreasing capacity to sexually compete with the attractiveness of younger women, her attraction for more than just the physical aspects of men begins to assume a higher priority. Those aspects (status, confidence, affluence, worldly maturity, etc.) are typically found in men old enough to have had the experience to acquire them.

I should also add here that, there are incidents of women who, for some condition or circumstance opt out of their party years. Either their socioeconomic situation prevents it, or an early, unplanned pregnancy, or for religious convictions, but whatever the reason they move past this phase without a sense of having capitalized on it. In some respects this may seem to be a better choice than riding the proverbial ‘cock carousel’ into her Epiphany and Transitory phase (discussed in the next post), but it’s important to remember that these circumstances don’t disqualify a woman from the maturation process I’ve described here.

In some cases it may be the source of resentment at a man for having ‘held her back’ from all of the experiences her girlfriends went through (through which she vicariously lived), or it may be her coming into a better understanding of how other men (perceptually) meet her hypergamic balance better than the one she settled for earlier than she had the maturity to understand. As we’ll explore in the next continuation post, this resentment can be a later source of marital dissatisfaction (and divorce) for women approaching the Epiphany and Transitory phases.

This post is the first in a 3 part series. In part 2 I’ll outline the Epiphany, Transition, Security and Development phases.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,711 other followers