Category Archives: Alpha

October 8, 2012

Balancing Sexual Pluralism

By Rollo Tomassi

Homecoming

I had an interesting occasion to do a bit of social observation this weekend. I drove Bebé Tomassi to her first high school Homecoming dance and got a glimpse of the Ghost of Hypergamy Future. As you might guess from growing up in the Tomassi household, Bebé is an exceptionally attractive girl, and this is coming from a red pill advocate, as well as a proud father. However, for all her innocent charm and Disney Channel inspired understandings of high school social dynamics, she was more than a bit shocked by the dress and behavior of the girls at her first ‘real dance’.

As I waited in the pick up line of cars at the end of the night I saw more short club skirts on teenage girls than I see on most liquor promo events I attend. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they looked like whores (my daughter’s analysis), but I will admit to being somewhat taken aback by how closely these 15-16-17 year old girls resembled the early to mid 20′s women I see in my line of work. At a club, at a tasting, or a promotional event, I will admit I enjoy the eye candy, I love a hot outfit like any other guy, but something just didn’t sit right with me seeing these girls dressed for a high school dance. Maybe I’m showing my age, but it did give me some food for thought.

Later Bebé told me she didn’t dance all that much, because she was surprised by how the gym looked more like a rave dance floor than a homecoming dance. She’d gone with 4 of her girlfriends, but none felt comfortable grinding their asses on some guy’s crotch whom they’d have to see at school the following Monday. Bebé has been a practiced dancer since she was 7. “They weren’t even dancing” she explained on the way home, “it was more like dry humping to music I didn’t even know.”

Varsity Blues

I kind of had time to take mental notes of all this when I was waiting in the car line. On SoSuave we have a high school forum (which I regrettably haven’t had much time to participate in lately), and when I do take the time to give advice there, the dynamic is drastically different for the young men there than the mid 20′s, 30′s and mature men I generally counsel. The reason for this dynamic shift is due to the fact that in women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, the long term side of that pluralism is practically nonexistent.

It’s very difficult for a teenage boy to display higher value beyond physical prowess and conveying a confident Alpha dominant attitude. Beyond maybe owning a car or truck, a teenage guy’s SMV is based almost entirely upon his physical presence and/or performance. Teenage girls only really care about how cute/hawt! a teenage guy is. It’s a Game of raw, Darwinistic tingles for adolescent girls, because even if they had some rudimentary appreciation for a guy’s intrinsic value, all of their security needs are more or less provided for by there parent(s).

From the sexual pluralism side, girls don’t develop an appreciation (or attraction) of men fulfilling that long-term security imperative until well into their mid to late 20′s. Throughout high school and through college, via their Fathers or the state’s provisioning, the security side of this sexual pluralism (the Good Dad attraction) is satisfied to varying degrees.

Short Terms

As I outlined in Schedules of Mating, hypergamy dictates women secure (commitment from) the best male exhibiting the traits of both genetics (short term breeding) and parental investment (long term provisioning), but rarely do the best of these traits exist in the same man. Then it hit me as I waited in that car line; these westernized teenage girls and their college age sisters, to a greater degree, have this long term part of their sexual plurality accounted for – or at least accounted for well enough that their primary sexual strategy focus is mostly fixated the short term breeding model.

Under such conditions ‘gina tingles preempt long term security concerns. So the logical next step is for girls to develop a sexually competitive strategy with other girls around hooking up with the highest value Alpha their looks can arouse. That isn’t to disqualify the attractiveness of intrinsic qualities (especially as a woman approaches the Wall), only that extrinsic qualities hold a higher prioritization. Thus, with the long term side of sexual plurality almost a non-issue, we see girls at earlier and earlier ages, learn to eroticize (not sexualize) themselves to be better prepared for that competition.

Long Terms

Rational reader, Wesley Dabney had some interesting input on Up the Alpha that dovetails nicely into this dynamic:

we can disagree all you want but that won’t make it any less true. a healthy woman’s central emotion is love. if you return that love to her, she will love you back and be faithful. no alpha can crack that connection. however, most men today have been so damaged by the sexual market place they are incapable of showing a woman the love they need to commit resulting in what you see today.

I’d advise anyone of this interpretation of women’s nature to read these posts first to get a better understanding of how women love (in this order):

Women in Love

Men in Love

Of Love and War

Wes, I have no doubt that your personal experience with your girlfriend’s love might lead you to think it contradicts what I’ve detailed in these posts, but she, like all women (including Mrs. Tomassi), loves opportunistically. I’ll explain, but don’t take this as an insult about you or your girlfriend:

I had a hard childhood. i have ptsd and anger management issues. my g/f makes more money than me.. etc etc.. according to many here.. she’s prime bait to be taken away from me by someone with higher status. however, she has proven to me that won’t happen. i put her through hell and she stayed by my side. i got lucky though and i know that.

The fact that you did put her ‘through’ hell’ is exactly why she’ll stay with you. After looking at your profile pic and FaceBook, from a physical standpoint, I’d estimate your SMV at least 2 points higher than her. Again, just being purely analytical, I’d put you at about an 8 and her about a 6 and this imbalance is exactly where Roissy has posited that ‘ real love’ exists between men and women. Your higher SMV provides you with default dominance.

Just from perusing your profile I get the impression that you enforce (maybe subconsciously) an Alpha dominance (anger issues), but this only contributes to her secure attachement to you. Your deficit in that she makes more money than you is sublimated by your own SMV. When women on some peripheral level of consciousness, doubt they can do better than the guy they’re with, hypergamy is satisfied. This is precisely why divorce rates level off progressively with age – post-Wall women can’t afford to reinsert themselves back into single life without a lot of motivation. A restart after the Wall is impractical, thus the rationalization hamster self-convinces women that her attraction cues are really her arousal cues.

All of this however simply proves that women love opportunistically. If Wes didn’t have the counterbalancing qualities to make him 2 points higher in SMV I doubt we’d be having this conversation. Women’s emotional center (if there is such a thing) isn’t love, but security. At its core, Hypergamy is an issue of optimized security.

Balancing Hypergamy

Security comes in a lot of different forms; financial, emotional, familial, etc. When a woman has established a base line of security for herself in one of these forms, other forms take precedent. So for a woman to make herself (or be by default) more or less financially independent, her impetus will be to find a guy who satisfies that hypergamic need of Alpha dominance and sexual prowess. Thus the hawt guy, with Alpha swagger outclasses the boring beta with equitable wealth to her own. Even a beta of higher socioeconomic status wont stimulate a woman who can comparatively and contextually assess that the Alpha she’s committed to, though lower on a socio-econ level, is still a better hypergamic match because his Alpha impact has left a long term impression on her (i.e a potential Alpha Widow).

You can also find parallels to this in the Cougar Effect. Past-prime women with their financial needs met by divorce settlements, child support and alimony will tend to look for the hot young(er) guy with whom she can satisfy the sexual short term strategy that a long term prospect can’t offset for her because she’s already provided for.

One important fact about Feminine Hypergamy is that it applies to both sides of a woman’s sexual pluralism. “Alpha fucks and Beta bucks” is a useful euphemism, but hypergamy applies to both of these instances and seeks a balance. It’s also important to understand that, while hypergamy may not care about much of anything, it does seek its own level. Despite social media and the feminine imperative’s attempts to convince a woman otherwise, to some limbic degree, women are aware of their own SMV. Hypergamy wants an optimized state, but that impulse is mitigated by the realities of her capacity to attain it.

76 comments | posted in Alpha, Foundations, Hypergamy, The Feminine Imperative

October 5, 2012

Terry ♥’s Gene

By Rollo Tomassi

OK, I’ll admit it, I’ve been a KISS fan since I was 8 years old. There, I said it. KISS actually changed my life –if it hadn’t been for KISS I never would’ve picked up a guitar and enjoyed the semi-pro rock star days of my late 80′s early 90′s youth. And by all accounts, if not for KISS, you probably wouldn’t be reading the Rational Male since a lot of what my earliest proto-Game experience came from was my youthful indulgences on stage, in the clubs and the social proof that came along with that.

Gene Simmons was never really my favorite of the band (I was much more into Ace), so I didn’t develop an appreciation for his apex Alphaness until KISS had become a music business, show and merchandising juggernaut. In the same vein as the Alpha Buddah, Corey Worthington, Gene is the walking embodiment of the zen-like Alpha essence. Unlike Corey however, Gene possess not only an awareness of his Alpha state, but also a self-affirmed confidence, control and focus in directing that Alpha essence.

So it was an interesting match up when I first listened to this interview of him by Terry Gross of NPR for her show Fresh Air. I’ll let the interview tell the story, but if you are at all familiar with Terry Gross you know she’s a practiced interviewer, a staunch feminist, but not a lesbian (don’t let the look fool you).

A lot of people may think Gene is full of shit. I know he may be just selling stuff, but the way he handles Gross makes for some very entertaining manosphere reading (the audio is available on YouTube if you prefer), and makes me think he’s cooler than I had thought before. It’s a long interview. She calls him “obnoxious” a couple of times, and I’ve never heard her use that word on her show EVER. I think he did get to her, and she just couldn’t deal.

Terry Gross vs. Gene Simmons

Both Gene and Terry are communicating in their native gender languages, Gene’s being OVERT and Terry’s being COVERT. She starts the interview with a subtle jab at Gene wearing makeup and it being a way of hiding himself. She knows damn well from a previous interview that Gene is a Man who’s well aware of his own value, so she starts with the standard feminized assumption that his bravado is a mask too. Gene’s smart enough to read this and calls her on her shit test. He could’ve pulled some over the top gansta bullshit in offense, but that would only verify Terry’s covert shot at him.

However, rather than let her get to him he counters her and fluidly neg hits her. Gene knows damn well he’d never bang a woman like Terry, yet this is is default response. Notice his comments about her tend to be backhanded compliments. They’re both playing poker; she bluffs, Gene sees her and raises, etc.

Properly conditioned chumps will assume Gene’s an ass hole because he overtly gets the better of her. Our default is always to side with the female, she’s always the victim, but look a little deeper and you’ll see how she deftly shit tests him. Her questions seem innoccuous enough, but remember the context of this interview – each of them knows how the other plays.

I think too many men in this era mistake masculine confidence for arrogance, because they fear that displaying it will risk them being rejected by a woman. They’ve been conditioned to make this association.

No School Like the Old School

This interview is fantastic because it’s a clash between how masculinity was (Gene) and how the feminine imperative expects masculinity to be now (Terry). Just for the record, this is actually the 2nd time Terry has interviewed Gene. I’ll try to find the 1st interview, because it’s equally entertaining. Gene comes off as arrogant, but this is really the result of Terry expecting an aging rock star to have matured somewhat. The problem is Gene was mature long before his time and has been a successful entrepreneur and a positively masculine male for ages. It’s Terry’s masculine expectations and constant exposure to the “new”, declawed, less threatening, masculinity over the past 30 years.

Gene sounds boastful or even rude, but bear in mind, he’s not trying to get a rise from Terry, that’s just how he is. He’s the last of a dying breed – a Man who’s unashamed, and comfortable being a Man. Banging 4,600 women might seem like he should enter some hall of fame, but even if it’s half this number, he’s undoubtedly lived life on his own terms. Terry on the other hand cannot let her hair down (literally) and clings to the New Woman model, expecting Gene to somehow break character and fall in line for her. She’s dissapointed he wont, but the fact is he is for real. So it becomes this clash of old school masculinity vs. new woman expectations of what’s been defined for Terry as what should be masculinity. And after all this, remember, she sought Gene out for this second interview years after the first. If she’d been genuinely offended by Gene’s demeanor I doubt she’d have gone back for seconds. My bet is she’ll be back for 3rds.

55 comments | posted in Alpha, Inter-gender Communication, The Feminine Imperative

October 2, 2012

Up the Alpha

By Rollo Tomassi

As expected the Alpha to Beta trait dichotomy was inferred from Last weeks post courtesy of commenter Ad Fortitudo:

Do you disagree with Athol Kay that the best option for a woman is a man with both alpha and beta traits?

That is to say, wouldn’t a man with great genes/physicality/confidence as well as financial stability and kindness be the “perfect man” for a woman?

Wouldn’t that satisfy both her short term and long term mating strategies?

I get the sense that it is in absence of men that have both traits that women seek out these different qualities in separate men under short and long term circumstances.

I covered this a long while ago in Schedules of Mating and as recently as Your Friend Menstruation. This want for the perfect amalgam of hot Alpha and parentally invested Beta is literally hard-coded into women’s brains and endocrine system. From the most rudimentary level, the conflict that  hypergamy instills in women is due to this want of fusing together the arousing Alpha with the attractive Beta in the same man. Thus was women’s pluralistic sexual strategy evolved.

The problem that confounds hypergamy is that the arousing Alpha and the attractive Beta rarely exist in the same male, at the same time and at the most opportune time for women to appreciate and capitalize on it. By this I mean that as women proceed through their peak SMV years, they place higher priorities and higher mating value upon predominately Alpha traits. These are the ‘fuck me now’ party years, and Alpha seed far out-values Beta need. As I wrote in Schedules of Mating, on a macro level this translates into a proactive form of cuckoldry. Even if it doesn’t result in a pregnancy, the latent urgency in a woman’s peak is to ‘get the seed first, find the provider later’ (i.e. protracted cuckoldry).

The fantasy for women of course is to ‘tame the savage Alpha’ and convert him into a parentally invested partner by encouraging Beta traits in him as he matures, and hopefully prospers. Many a thwarted single mommy knows the unfortunate outcome of attempting to ‘fix’ their Bad Boy Alpha into the Good Dad Father, but this is the emphasis assuming a woman pauses long enough to invest in one particular Alpha during her peak years. The base schema is to maintain that hot Alpha arousal, while developing him into a more attractive Beta provider.

As a woman approaches the downturn of her SMV that hypergamic urgency shifts to favor Beta providership traits as the prospect of long term security alters the priorities of her hypergamy. Now the script changes to one favoring the nice, dependable, and necessarily resourceful man with all the attractive features she needs for a commitment to long term security. It’s not that she doesn’t still become aroused by the physicality and charisma of a predominately Alpha male (particularly in her proliferate menstrual phase), but she is more aware of the balance between her lessened ability to attract that man (post-Wall) and the need to pair-bond with a man who can provide for her and her offspring. Women will mitigate this arousal-attraction imbalance with their own forms of pornography or self-initialized rationalization about their ‘deeper maturity’, but in essence the doubt that hypergamy seeds in them has to be held in check either through self-repression or by dread of loss.

The fantasy for women in this instance is the hope that their predominately Beta partner will “Man Up”, Just Get It on his own and develop more arousing Alpha traits as he matures. The base schema here is to maintain the sweet Beta provider attraction, while developing him into a more arousing Alpha as her needs demand.

Beta with a Side of Alpha

The inimitable Geisha Kate then helps solidify this analysis of her ‘Perfect Man’:

Great point. That ^ is the true manicorn. That is what I mean when I say I’ll take a “greater beta with fries.”

Be careful what you pray for Kate, the women (and Manboobz) who kvetch about the ‘overly sensitive men’ they committed to probably wished for the same. In fact I’d argue that the majority of married men now looking to Athol Kay for insight believed they were Greater Betas with a side of Alpha.

Kate’s in a  stage of life when the Beta providership male makes far better practical sense to pair off with. Just like Aunt Giggles, her definition of attraction and ‘a good relationship’ is biased by the personal conditions of her present SMP valuation. She understands this from her age, SMV and necessity perspective, but this undoubtedly wasn’t her perspective when she was in the prime of her SMV years.

This is the ‘build-a-better-beta‘ paradox:

The overarching  point is to create a more acceptable man for a female defined goal, NOT to truly empower any man. There is no feminine opposite to this; there is no counter effort to make women more acceptable to men – in fact this is actively resisted and cast as a form of slavish subservience. This is the extent of the feminine reality; it’s so instaurating that men, with the aid of  ”concerned women”, will spend lifetimes seeking ways to better qualify themselves for feminine approval. That’s the better Beta they hope to create. One who will Man-Up and be the Alpha as situations and use would warrant, but Beta enough to be subservient to the feminine imperative. They seek a man to be proud of, one who’s association reflects a statement of their own quality, yet one they still have implicit control over.

Whether the reasonings are moral, entitlement or ‘honor bound’ in nature the end result is still feminine primacy. The sales pitch is one of manning up to benefit yourself, but the latent purpose is one of better qualifying for normalized feminine acceptance. What they cannot reconcile is that the same benefits that are inherent in becoming more Alpha (however you choose to define that) are the same traits that threaten his necessary position of subservience as a Beta. This is precisely why ‘real’ Game, and truly unplugging, cannot be sanitized. This social element wants to keep you plugged in; more Alpha, more confidence, more awareness, is a threat to fem-centrism. “It’s great that all this Game stuff has finally got you standing up for yourself, but remember who’s got the vagina.“

I have a lot of respect for Athol, and not so much for Aunt Giggles, but the problem I see with both of their approaches in balancing Alpha with Beta is that they begin from a fem-centric origin. Athol seems to have the better take of the two, but by and large the men seeking his advice are Beta men who’ve been red-pill enlightened to the fact that they need to up the Alpha – presuming they had an Alpha element to start.

Aunt Giggles simply wants a Beta, who’s an Alpha of a woman’s convenience. Aunt Sue had a grand mal seizure orgasm when she’d thought Roissy was actually advocating that men genuinely become more Beta. She force fit it to comply with her build-a-better-beta narrative (CH suggests using Beta as an in-context Game tactic), but it only better illustrates her latent imperatives about a post-Wall, fem-centrically defined preference for Beta with a side of Alpha.

There is no side of Alpha. The conflict both Kate and Giggles don’t grasp is that Alpha demands dominance, and this doesn’t fit very well with the feminine imperative’s false religion of equalism. Athol understand this with his Captain and First Officer analogy; in any relationship one partner is the dominant personality, the other the submissive. Even homosexual couples recognize this order, but the women and men of the feminine Matrix resist this with the delusion of an equalist utopia amongst the genders.

So when I read about a desire for achieving some balance of Alpha to Beta traits in the ‘perfect man’ I realize that this is an extension of this feminine-primary equalist want for balance amongst the genders; which really equates to women wanting a perfected security. In their need for control (dominance) they want hypergamy definitively settled in the perfect man, for the perfect occasion, and at every stage of their SMV maturation. Men, mangina sympathizers or otherwise, are simply the means to that end. That end may be with the perfect husband, or via cuckolding or through fem-side pornography, or any other methodology women’s sexual pluralism will help her invent.

Up the Alpha

I’ve written this before, but it bears repeating: for men wanting to change their lives and relationships, working up from Beta to Alpha is a far tougher road to hoe that tempering Alpha dominance with a personalized touch of Beta. As bad as Hugo Schwyzer is in his abject feminization, have a read of a few of the female commenters in this article. How many of the simpering, socially conditioned, Betatized men these women seeth about would make for believable Alphas once they had a red pill epiphany? It is precisely because of this impressionistic, binary solipsism that women will never be happy with ‘fixing’ their Beta. This is why he has to Just Get It on his own.

It is a far better proposition to impress a woman with an organic Alpha dominance – Alpha can only be a man’s dominant personality origin. There is no Beta with a side of Alpha because that side of Alpha is NEVER believable when your overall perception is one of being Beta to begin with. This is why I stress Alpha traits above all else. It’s easy, and endearing to ‘reveal’ a flash of Beta sensitivity when a woman perceives you as predominantly Alpha. If your personality is predominantly Beta, any sporadic flashes of Alpha will seem like emotional tantrums at best, character flaws at worst.

Women may love the Beta, but they only respect the Alpha.

132 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Alpha, Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Idealizations, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative

September 27, 2012

The Perfect Man

By Rollo Tomassi

Arcbound had a bit of insight about the tactical applications of predictable behaviors resulting from women’s menstrual cycle phases:

So then how would someone reconcile the two characteristics… Is there some sort of balance of alpha and beta traits? Should we show alpha and beta traits on different times of the month?

I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t anticipated this response, but the key to answering this question is found in how women perceive attraction versus how they feel when sexually aroused. I detailed this briefly in my last post:

I think where most beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy.

For women and most plugged in men, what I’m illuminating here probably seems like an effort in semantics, but it’s important to make a separation between what conditions and cues a woman is sexually aroused by and what traits make for her overal attraction for a man.

Attraction is not Arousal

Women love to be asked about what they look for in a man. It’s kind of like imagining what you’ll do with all your lottery winnings after you buy a quick-pick – you want the mansion and the yacht, but you’ll also give some to charity so as not to seem like money could fundamentally change you into a greedy prick. Women rationalize that their most self-indulgent wants need to be tempered with some measured appearance of prudence. This is a kind of meta scale anti-slut defense. However, while ASD is a localized private dynamic, on a socialized, public scale this translates into women presenting a perception of judiciousness in explaining what they find attractive in a man, without being burdened with the perception of ‘shallowness’ for what they find arousing in a man.

You also have to consider that when women list their prerequisites for their ideal man, they are approaching this question from the perspective of whom they would like to pair off with for committed long term security and provisioning – entirely sidestepping women’s innate pluralistic sexual strategy and what really turns them on for a short term sexual experience. Most of what a woman will list as redeeming attributes on her ‘attraction list’ are what red pill men would describe as beta traits. In fact, as per my last post on menstruation, most of these attraction cues would be best expressed while a woman is in her luteal phase. In this frame of mind she says she wants comfort and trust endearing qualities – sensitivity, empathy, familiarity, humor, charm, compliments, caring, etc. – in other words the beta traits the average chump has in spades as the result of his constant immersion in a fem-centric acculturation.

Generation AFC

One of the most resounding themes in the manosphere is that the vast majority of guys are beta chumps. A lot of men and women outside the sphere bristle at this estimation because it sounds callous and accusatory – all coming at them from the end of a pointed arrogant Alpha’s finger. But the root of their anger really comes from being made to understand that the overwhelming mass of average frustrated chumps are actually the direct result of the feminization they thought would benefit humanity. Let’s level the playing field and play by women’s standards for a change, lets see what they’d like men to be, lets identify with the feminine more and the world will be a better place.

Only it turned out not to be a better place. It turns out women didn’t know what was best for men as based on their own inadequate (really solipsistically indifferent) understanding of masculine nature and the results are summed up in articles like this; feminized men bemoaning the feminization of men. All as a proxy for women complaining about how the feminized men they created are now too feminine for them to be attracted to, much less aroused by.

So as you can see, the world is actually awash in beta men; and all so well conditioned to be in touch with their feminine sides that they seek out the guiding dominance of masculinized women (by choice or by perception) to provide them with a direction in their life. Beta Game is a dead end (sometimes literally), so unsurprisingly it’s a painful realization for the majority of men to have this spelled out for them in no uncertain terms. At the same time it comes as a stinging retribution for women who see what’s become of the men they created – they got the men they deserved.

More Beta is not a Sexual Strategy

There are certain femosphere bloggers who’d advocate the building of a better beta. Their presumptions are based on the same misguided feminization that resulted in the greater feminization of the men Hugo Schwyzer complains about (for women) in his article. They fear a push back towards masculine Alpha dominance will result in a generation of assholes, devoid of the nurturing beta qualities they thought women could identify more with. Yet they simultaneously bemoan the absence of dominant, arousal inspiring, Alpha aspects of masculinity in men today. Ted D in his new found red pill epiphany sums this paradox up fairly well over at Aunt Giggles echo chamber:

We can go on and on about how most women LOVE good beta traits, but they simply ARE. NOT. TURNED. ON. BY. THEM

In this short sentence Ted D encapsulates the conflict between Attraction and Arousal for women. When women say “they want the whole package” they enumerate the qualities of what makes for their best long term provisioning, however, this conflicts with what arouses women sexually. The guy who exemplifies the best beta male characteristics isn’t getting the same play as the guy exemplifying the best Alpha arousal cues. This is precisely the duplicity men experience when women mislead them to believe that beta provisioning traits are equatable with Alpha arousal cues.

A stay at home Dad might have himself convinced that he’s more fulfilled in his mothering role, but he’s gravely mistaken in convincing himself that women find his fatherly efforts sexually arousing. They may find it attractive in “whole package” sense, ultimately Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a father you are.

For the better part of the last 70 years men have been conditioned to think that more beta equals more pussy, and the results of this social experiment are now manifest in the pathetic men Hugo (himself included) complains of. The greater problem women face now is accepting the genuineness of an Alpha transformation of so many men.

Up the Alpha

Women love the concept of tempering the dominant asshole Alpha. It’s a common romance novel fantasy for women to be the uniquely soothing influence over the rebellious jerk who wets her panties with her arousal. It’s self-affirming for women to think their Alpha superhero would only show his beta side to her. Unfortunately the reverse of this situation is the reality – the vast majority of men must fight an uphill battle from beta origins to Alpha transformation. It is Game and red pill awareness that aid in upping the Alpha, but for women conditioned to expect beta male frailty, for women whose lives have been defined by male submissiveness, this transformation is herculean task.

Women would rather share a high value Man than be saddled with a faithful loser. The easier path for women is to ditch the primarily beta man in favor of finding / holding out for (and sharing) an arousing, primarily Alpha man.

84 comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Alpha, Game, Idealizations, The Feminine Imperative

September 25, 2012

Your Friend Menstruation

By Rollo Tomassi

From Schedules of Mating:

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

Years ago, when I was writing this post, my emphasis was on how an evolved dynamic (female pluralistic sexual strategy) translated into evolved social dynamics (feminine primary social conventions). My focus then was on how the feminine creates and normalizes social conditions that favor hypergamy by covertly manipulating social expectations – not only of the men who would facilitate that hypergamy, but also for women themselves in how their own self-rationalizations (hindbrain, hamsters) can be socially justified (i.e the myth of  the feminine mystique).

I wrote Schedules of Mating in 2005 (on SoSuave) in an effort to explain the rudiments of hypergamy in a more accessible way for guys who were still struggling with understanding why women would say they wanted “a Nice guy with a good heart” yet would behaviorally opt for Bad Boy-Jerks as their sexual partners of choice. I still think it’s a pretty good essay, which is why I revised and included it in the earliest posts at Rational Male. However, even at the time I was writing, I knew that the concept of an evolved hypergamy and its social implication still had a lot more under the hood to explore.

Biological Hypergamy

My point of departure for today’s post is this study on hormones and brain activity from the Kinsey Institute. I’ll be quoting the 2008 study, but do read it, it’s fairly brief.

“One area of the brain in which we observed a difference in activation in response to masculinized versus feminized faces — specifically during the follicular phase — was the anterior cingulate cortex, which is a region involved in decision-making and the evaluation of potential reward and risk,” said neuroscientist Heather Rupp, research fellow at the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. “Activation in this region has been previously reported to correlate with ‘high risk’ nonsocial choices, specifically monetary risk, so it is interesting that it is observed to be more active in response to masculinized male faces, who may be both riskier but more rewarding to women.”

Previous studies have shown that women’s sexual preference for facial characteristics vary depending on their menstrual phase. These fluctuating preferences are thought to reflect evolutionarily founded changes in women’s reproductive priorities. Around the time of ovulation women prefer more masculinized faces — faces with features that indicate high levels of testosterone. These facial cues predict high genetic quality in the male because only such males can afford the immune-compromising effects of testosterone. Testosterone may be costly for the males’ mates as well because high testosterone levels also are associated with high rates of offspring abandonment.

Around the time of ovulation, a female’s preference apparently shifts from avoiding negligent parenting to acquiring the best genes for her offspring. At other points during the cycle, women will prefer more feminized male faces, as they might signal a higher willingness of the males to invest in offspring.

Alpha fucks and beta bucks is a biologically hard-wired feature of the female mind. Studies like this aren’t unknown to the manosphere, and even the early PUA teachers had an almost instinctual(?) understanding of how a woman’s ovulatory cycle could affect a guy’s odds of a successful hookup without ever having read them. There’s a plethora of practical applications a man might use with a firm knowledge of how a woman’s cycle affects her mood, her susceptibility to his influence and how her rationalization will be altered as a result of the particular phase she happens to be in.

In his blue pill years, I think a lot of what accounts for a guy’s sporadic successes with women can be attributed to the woman’s ovulatory phase and favorable circumstance. Right phase, right place, right time and a guy who gave off just enough subconscious Alpha cues to get the lay – or the brief girlfriend status until her subsequent follicular phase peaked and he wasn’t the Alpha she thought he was 3 weeks prior.

Alpha Phase

From a Game perspective, using the this illustration as a guide, the latter half of the folicular (proliferative) phase – the period between day 7 to about day 14 – might be called the Alpha Phase for Men. The Kinsey study (and many similar ones) would indicate that this 7 (maybe 10) day window predisposes women to (Alpha) sexual influence and would be the optimal period for a man to make a lasting Alpha impression. ‘Gina tingles are most commonly born in the proliferative phase.

I’ve caught a lot of grief in the past from angry women for suggesting that all women have an ‘inner slut’ and that all a guy need do is be the right man at the right time to bring this out in them. I think understanding a woman’s cycle kind of puts a punctuation on this. The hot coed on spring break in Cancun who fucks the hot guy in the foam cannon party is probably in her proliferative phase. Add alcohol and you’ve got the chemical formula for sexual urgency – even from the ‘good girl‘. When she thinks or says “I don’t know what came over me, I’m not usually like that.” she’s observing her behavior from luteal phase perspective. She really isn’t “like that” the other 21 days of her cycle.

As the Kinsey study reports, it’s during this part of a woman’s cycle that she become subconsciously attuned to masculinized traits and makes subliminal efforts to capitalize on her concurrent ovulation. In other words, this is the period in which hypergamy doesn’t care the most. It’s “fuck me now, I’ll rationalize it out later.”

About now you’re probably wondering, “That’s all well and good Rollo, but how the fuck do I determine what cycle phase a woman is in?” If all a guy were doing was cold approaches I could understand the confusion. There are countless ‘tells’ women will display when they are in their proliferative phase. Dr. Martie Hasselton has done some excellent studies on female ornamentation coinciding with ovulation and also how women’s vocal pitch shifts lower (sultry voice) during this phase, but if you’re still unconvinced, listen to your gut – men instinctually know when women are in the pro phase of ovulation. If you have the patience to learn, pay better attention to the behaviors of the women in your immediate social circle, or to the behaviors of the girl you think you may want to target at some point. Since women living in close proximity tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles, more likely than not they’ll covertly infer when it’s ‘rag week’.

Beta Phase

If the proliferate phase is the Alpha Phase for Men, then the luteal phase could be considered the Beta Phase. Again using the Kinsey study as our guide we can infer that women become drawn to more feminine features in men during the 14 day down side of their cycle. The attributes of attraction (not arousal) that define this stage are associated with comfort, familiarity, empathy, etc. meant to reinforce the perception that a man is a good choice for parental investment.

Again, this is nothing novel in the manosphere. Even Roissy has written posts regarding the applied use of beta-side Game – in context. Far too many men believe the WYSIWYG myth about women and their advertised attraction requisites as being predominantly beta-associative. As I illustrated in Wait for It?, the girl who spontaneously banged the hot guy in the foam cannon party is the same girl who’ll tell you you need to earn her trust because she needs to be comfortable with you before you have sex. Betas believe this at face value and don’t strike while the iron’s hot (the proliferate phase), wait her out and wonder why they get LJBF’d at the end of her luteal phase.

I think where most beta men lose the trail is in the belief that Beta attraction is (or should be) synonymous with Alpha arousal. Each of these concepts is representative of a different facet of women’s pluralistic sexual strategy – Alpha seed, Beta need. Women’s sexual imperatives can be defined by the degree to which her short term mating strategy can be justified, or offset, by her long term mating strategy.

Nowhere is this disparity more obviously manifested than in the biological reality of a woman’s menstrual cycle which creates it.

The Hypergamy Link

One aspect of hypergamy that I’m not certain most men really understand is that hypergamy is a biological phenomenon in origin. I sometimes wonder if Game-aware men confuse hypergamy with being a social construct. Women almost certainly do, but more from a need to protect the rationalizations that result from confronting the uncomfortable internal conflict that hypergamy causes for them – “why am I not hot for the sweet beta who’d give me the world, but am tingly all over for the hot guy who’s casually indifferent to me?”

The base truth of hypergamy as a dynamic is that it is the logical result of women’s innate, hormonal and neural condition. This root-level disparity of a plural sexual strategy led to the evolution of the feminine psyche – to be covert, to be excusably duplicitous, to be better communicators on more varied levels, but also to be the nurturers and empathizers.

Since the sexual revolution began, the biological rationale for social feminization has been men’s biological proclivity for violence and aggression. We were told that we’re poisoned by our testosterone; we’re controlled from youth to repress that in school to the point where teachers expect boys to ‘act out‘, so we drug them. Yet, the biological rationale for hypergamy could also be said to lie in women’s biological (menstrual) impetus that motivates their sexual pluralism.

46 comments | posted in Alpha, Biomechanics, Game, Hypergamy, Social Conventions

September 19, 2012

Kill the Bunny

By Rollo Tomassi

New Case Study today. Reader JAS at SoSuave wanted help with his most recent target (edited for length):

I am 42. So here is the deal.

I moved to a new city a year ago and started a new job. There is a 35 yr old, hot woman there who I will call D. D is hot- about a 7, very smart, cool etc. From the beginning we hit it off and we have always spoken and interacted with some flirtatious undertones.. but we work together. Much as I liked her, I was up to my neck in pussy all this year. Little by little we would talk about our dates etc. and just generally were cool.. but we never spoke outside of work or anything. I liked her but not so much that I felt the need to pursue.

About 2 months ago I noticed a change in her that coincided with a change in myself – we were upping the stakes mutually. She would come around and talk more to me, lingering, lots of eye contact. I started feeling the need to do the same. Things went on this way until eventually until 2 weeks ago I asked her to get a drink. She jumped at the chance. We met up that Friday and hung out. I was still unsure if I was interested enough to pursue her, but by the end of the evening it had all clicked. I LIKED her.. in a keeper sort of way. We ended our hanging out with a peck on the lips.

We met up at a work function the night after and weren’t able to do much, but we snuck some hand holding and another short kiss. She wanted to do brunch the next day, but I had a  birthday party for family Sunday and had to say no.

So back to work on Monday and due to our schedules wouldn’t be able to meet for a bit. Wednesday we both walked up to each other and she literally stamps her feet an says “I really want to see you!”. I said me too and that I would call her that night to meet up. Its was do or die, because she had a trip out of town and would be gone until this week. So I get home, text and …..nothing. No response until 10 pm saying she went jogging without her phone and met her sister for some errands. I was like WTF?

I played it off and said no big deal, but that I did find that confusing, could we meet tomorrow? she said she had tentative plans and wasn’t sure, but knew I wouldn’t hang around waiting so probably not. I didn’t respond.

Next day she is texting me and asking me questions all the time.. I responded late and only curtly as I sensed she was fishing to see if I was angry.

She went on her trip and when she got back on Tuesday, I played it cool and didn’t say much at all. I was polite but never brought any of it up. But I didn’t flirt much either.. Just being neutral.

So yesterday I was talking to her and decided to force her to either drop it or go for it. I went to her and said “go out with me”. She kind of hemmed and hawed but said she wanted to and Friday might be best. I said fine, but then she said that maybe she had to check on something to make sure. I remained cool and said, contact me and let me know.

I haven’t heard from her yet, but its still Thursday, so I decided to just leave the ball in her court.

What are my next steps? If she doesn’t call at all, I plan to not remind her about our plans at all. If she is interested, she will contact. If she doesn’t I plan a freeze out. But not sure what else to do.

This was JAS’s set-up situation. Later he developed a bit more:

I get to work today and she is walking in early. She comes to where I am and starts talking about the weather etc, as she talks I continue my trajectory towards the spot I sit at outside during my break. She realizes I am continuing on my path and starts walking and facing my direction. I am not overly talkative, but not acting all butthurt either, just chill. She eventually breaks and goes inside.

Later on, during the day she is insinuating herself into my conversations. Again, I am not being rude, or any different than usual, except I cut out the flirty vibe we always have and thats all. I notice her trying to read me throughout, kinda like “is he really ok, or is he secretly mad?”, but that may be projection on my part. Who knows what thoughts are in there.

As I get ready to head home, She corners me in the hallway, this is, more or less, the convo as I remember it

Her: I feel I’ve fucked this up. I should have called you but I’ve really been a mess lately.
Me: its cool, I had a feeling you weren’t feeling it and made other plans
Her: really? I mean, should we talk about this? Its always so weird talking here at work, I feel strange.
Me: I’m not sure what you mean. What is it you want to talk about exactly?
Her: this, us. I don’t know whats going on.
Me: if you like we can
Her: I give up, I don’t know what……..
Me: for me its simple, we are either feeling it, or we’re not. By your behavior my assumption is you are not. Or you would have made more of an effort. And if that is the case, Its ok.
Her: Are you feeling it still?
Me: are you? Look, we’re being crytpic, So let me show you how its done: Yes, I would like to get to know you, I made that clear by asking you out. I expect, if its mutual for you to follow through. If not, well..
Her: it is. We do need to get together. Cant we get together tomorrow? Doing things here at work is just always confusing. I feel weird here, its confusing.
Me: I have plans (I really do)
Her: this is ridiculous. Wednesday?
Me. Wednesday is fine.
Her: I can’t read you. You give me this look, I don’t know what it means. I give up
Me: grabbing her hand: It means I like looking at you. So wed? set?
Her: yes.
Me:good
Her:good!
We both walk away smiling.

This is the first stage for JAS. He gets a B- for performance thus far. The first exchange was weak – a peck on the cheek, hand holding, etc. sound like an episode of Hannah Montana. This is not how adults date. If I had to guess, it was his hesitancy to consolidate on getting more intimate with her that’s what gave her pause. When the green light’s on brother, drive the friggin car.

However, his recovery is what’s saved him. She is qualifying to him and in a big way, this is exactly how you want it. He handles himself maturely and with amused mastery when he’s not ‘on a date‘, he needs to transition that into getting intimate with her. Notice how she accepted his direction here:

Her: I can’t read you. You give me this look, I don’t know what it means. I give up
Me: grabbing her hand: It means I like looking at you. So wed? set?
Her: yes.
Me:good
Her:good!

This is the dominance a woman is expecting from you when you’re building up to having sex with her. He owns it when he’s not on a date, but needs to own it when he is. Hesitate and thou art lost. Go timid on her on Wednesday, play nice and don’t escalate to making out (or more) and she goes off to find the next Alpha she thought you were.

Thus far JAS had been Alpha at work and Beta on the date. Her confusion comes from initially ‘reading’ him as Alpha, but he didn’t close the deal.

This is what women mean when they say they “can’t read you”
Translation: “You’re sending me Alpha cues, but you pull back like a Beta when it’s time to get physical.”

Also, have a plan. You lead. Tell her where you’re going and what you’ll be doing. She enters your world, you don’t enter hers – from his last conversation this is how she wants it anyway. Be fearless. She wants a whirlwind, you need to be that whirlwind.

After the Wednesday ‘date’ JAS gives us an update:

Well, we got our coffee today. I think it was good and bad… not sure if it was more of one or the other.

We got a coffee because lunch was impossible for both of us. As we walked we talked a bit about BS, until I stopped her and said “lets talk about what we came here to talk about”
So we started in. She gave me the “I’m not sure about what to do” thing. “I like you- obviously- and I’m attracted to you, but this is really complicated for me”
Me: yeah I got that vibe.
Her: so I don’t know, some days I wake up and say I want to pursue this, and other days I wake and think “fuck it, I cant deal with it”. I know I’m going to regret it if I don’t”

And so I pulled out my favorite move. I LJBF her. I said “look, whatever we do we’re good. Lets just be friends then”.
Hit the mark, “really?” she asked looking disappointed. In short, she didn’t let it drop there. She started saying she was attracted to me, and felt a deep connection to me and that I really understood her, probably more than anyone.

By now we’re back within eyesight of our hosp. co-workers are in and out. We go back and forth talking about it all, and she says “I’m sad” I asked her why. She said she didn’t know. I tell her “I’m a little sad too” she asked me why. I said “for the same reason you are probably. There is something here” We go on like this for a bit.

This where I think I got one bad thing- and I immediately thought of Rollo. She says “but you’re not very aggressive“
OUCH. I let it pass, mostly, but then it occurred to me “you make sure to keep us surrounded by people and never alone enough for me to do anything. You have your shields up, and you know it”
Her: yeah, your right. I’m scared of you, I think.

So I LJBFd her again. Basically I’m push pulling here, using the LJBF as a push every time I get something I don’t like.
Eventually, I say I have to go.. that I am leaving town. She says “tonight?” arent you driving?” I say “yes” she says I should wait until morning.

Is this an invitation to invite her out tonight? I’m still in LJBF mode with her. I say that was the plan, but I’ll see how I feel.
I then pulled her to me and kissed her, mind you, within view of potentially the entire hospital. So it wasn’t a major kiss, but it was on the lips and risky. Now she looks a bit confused – to be honest I am as well, since I am not sure if this is all good or not. Weird.
She then tells me again “I’m sad”
Me: dont be
her: no? why not?
Me: this isn’t over.
her: its not?
Me: no

So some good and bad here. The “your not aggressive” was a blow. I think I fended it off well though. I got her to admit alot, while maintaining frame, but its not where I would have wanted to go with this. Its about what I suspected. She is still scared to have a relationship, after what happened with her ex. I got her to tell me more about it all. etc. So I need outside imput here.

I also am of two minds of how to go here. I can try to get her to meet up again tonight- tell her I want to see her again before I go, etc. Or I can use the next two weeks vacation as a reset. Use it as an opportunity to work her via texts and having her miss me.

I believe she is being sincere as far as she can tell. Rollo is right she wants me to lead, but all the while making sure I can’t by blocking me out at every opportunity. I think I revealed alot of herself to her. I think she is being sincere when she said that I am a mystery to her, that she has never met someone like me. She says I am dark, and deep, and complex and she feels connected and attracted to me. And scared.

JAS, read what I’m about to write here carefully because it might help you with the next girl you meet after this one.

YOU NEED TO KILL THE FUCKING BUNNY!

Up to this point you’ve just been batting her around and confusing her with this coffee house, “safe-date shit. You’re not Gaming her or push-pulling her, or preempting anything with a LJBF.

“lets talk about what we came here to talk about”

Learn this now, you cannot negotiate desire. This is exactly what you’re doing here. You wanna fuck this woman? You wanna get some kind of relationship started?

STOP BROKERING THE DEAL.

Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. It’s sex first, then relationship, not the other way around. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated. Once you get past a certain point in the waiting game, what once had the chance to be an organic, sexual desire becomes mitigated negotiation of a physical act.

I feel like I’m reading a script between two kids from High School Musical. Take her on a ‘real date’. Go to a lounge, have cocktails, be indirect. Up to this point you’ve been overtly telegraphing your intent – this is the kiss of death. It’s like you’re writing up a proposal for a speculative relationship you might have if she signs the papers.

She is still scared to have a relationship, after what happened with her ex.

Yeah, my guess is this guy was the decisive Alpha you haven’t been with her, or if not she was hoping to find after the breakup. My advice to you is to chalk this one up to experience and NEXT her (workplace affairs are always a bad idea as it is). My readers will probably tell you she’s damaged goods, but if you insist on following through with this train wreck, stop being the PG rated JAS and start being the R rated JAS. Presume you’re dealing with an Alpha Widow and standing in her ex’s Alpha shadow.

48 comments | posted in Alpha, Case Studies, Game

August 27, 2012

Girl’s Night Out

By Rollo Tomassi

A Girl’s Night Out

I’ve been dating this girl for about 5 months now. She’s very attractive, I’d say an HB7 or 8. Her interest level is extremely high. I’d say in the high 90% bracket. She always calls or e-mails me when we’re not together telling me how much she misses me, etc, etc. And she expresses her feeling towards me in many ways when we are together. So my point here is that I know she’s really into me. And I play by the rule of keeping my interest level slightly below hers to keep things going. And it’s worked. Also, I apply all of the Game principals in our relationship. So I’m no chump with this girl and I feel that I have a good grip on the realtionship.

Her friend from New York is visiting her for four days. Her friend is single and young (25). Tonight they’re going out to a dance club with another girl whom they know who is also not dating anyone. This is all just fine. I understand that I shouldn’t discourage or show any type of insecurities regarding her going out with her friends. But I do feel that her two friends are going to be interested in the possibility of hooking up with some guys even though my girlfriend is not. It only makes sense since her one friend is from out of town, and they are single. This concerns me because I think it will put my GF in an awkward position.

I’m a bit confused on whether or not I should ask her anything about that evening in a playful manner when I talk to her next. In other words, what’s the best practice to do in this situation? Should I simply ask how her night went and if she had fun and just leave it at that? Or should I playfully poke at her about dudes hitting on her, and how girls can be naughty?

So the dillema is that on one hand, I don’t want to seem too passive about the whole thing. But on the other hand I don’t want to seem insecure. Part of me says that I should express some degree of protectiveness toward her in this situation. But I don’t want to send the wrong signal.

What are your thoughts

Let her go.

“You do know what happens when your girlfriend ‘gets drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..’?!!” Yes, I’ve been the guy who nailed your girlfriend.

“You do know that ‘taken’ girls just want to live vicariously through their single girlfriends?” I’ve written volumes about it.

This is a very common shit test. Don’t even pause to think about it and do NOT let her perceive for a second that you’re even contemplating it. Be matter-of-fact and tell her you’ll see her when she gets back. Don’t tell her to call you, and don’t you call her. If she calls be concise and ask her if she’s enjoying herself, nothing more – no details, nothing. Let her be as forthcoming as she wants and never for a minute give her the impression you’re suspicious or posessive. This is the surest way to pass this test.

When and if she asks about what you’ve been doing, tell her you’ve been busy with work/school, your family, etc., (i.e. something unavoidably responsible). Do NOT say you’re out with the boys in some lame effort to counter her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are doing anything as a reprisal to her going off with the girls. Do NOT give her the impression that you are pacing around the house waiting for her to call or sulking. In fact I’d advise letting your voicemail pick up the call and then call her back an hour later, if at all.

I’m sure many guys reading this are experiencing the twangs of possessive insecurity even in my suggesting this course of action. The reflexive response most guys will have in a situation like this will be one of mate protection; the fear being that if they don’t express their disapproval they’ll run the risk of their woman thinking they don’t care enough about them to be jealous. This is a trope most guys sell themselves, because it’s more about suspicion than jealousy. As intuitive as this sounds it really masks the insecurity that their girl will meet another guy and hook up with him. On an instinctual level we’re well aware of women’s pluralistic sexual strategies, thus an evolutionarily honed suspicion was hardwired into our psyches to protect men from becoming the beta cuckold provisioning for another male’s offspring. However, as counterintuitive as this sounds, a GNO is an excellent opportunity to display confidence behaviors.

The GNO Shit Test

The secret of the GNO (girls night out) shit test is, the truth of the matter is, that if a woman is determined to cheat on you, there’s really nothing you can do about it. You can protect your own genetic interests, but whether it’s on a GNO or with some guy from the office, if a woman wants to fuck, she’ll find a way to fuck and all the psychological, possessive arm twisting in the world wont change that desire. The covert message in this is what’s important.

Remember, a woman’s default is to communicate covertly. When you are indifferent to her proposition of a GNO it sends the message that you are confident enough in your own ability to replace her should she cross that line. Let her imagination work for you. Women love to convince themselves, “he trusts me implicitly” while they secretly sift through your text messages, but the covert message is really a veiled threat and exemplifies your self-confidence. Bear in mind it’s what she feels in this communication. If you leave her with the feeling that you’re clingy, possessive, sulky and worried, the impression she has is that you’re weak and are the kind of guy that women settle for, not compete for. Essentially you make her the PRIZE by voicing your insecurities. Alphas don’t worry about their plates on GNOs, in fact women enraptured by Alphas don’t see the appeal of GNOs.

A Prince isn’t worried about the behavior of one woman when he has several more on the royal speed-dial; one more testament to the power of abundance thinking and Plate Theory. This may or may not be the case, but the impression of it and the covert communication of it is vital. If, by your actions you can leave her with the feeling that you have a lot going for you, you’re in demand, that you are a commodity that other women will compete for, that you are the PRIZE; you plant the seed of doubt and she will voluntarily curb her desire to go on GNOs – and this is the outcome you’re striving for. You want your attention to be more rewarding than the attention she’ll receive on a GNO. You can’t force this into being so, but you can covertly manipulate her desire. You want her to talk herself out of going.

Learn this now, making a woman cognizant of higher sexual market value can only be demonstrated, never explicated.

Disclaimer: At this point I should also add that this in no way excuses the woman who CONSTANTLY goes on GNOs as some kind of ritual with her girlfriends. This is symptomatic of a larger problem and this, again, is based in desire. If you ever find yourself in this circumstance your best recourse is to NEXT and remove your attentions entirely. Women who have a regular GNO in LTRs are seeking something vicariously through their friends that they feel deprived of and need a fix for to feel completed. It’s only a matter of time until the right circumstances arise for her to consolidate on that deprivation. Better to cut your losses on a bad investment than play the cuckold for a woman who has no genuine desire for you and regularly demonstrates this in her behavior.

Possessiveness

I’ve known seasoned players who’d pee themselves over a girls night out proposition, but I always advise they adopt the attitude that she’s free to go do whatever she’d like. In fact I’d encourage it. That’s where confidence makes you a man, when you can say “go ahead, have a good time.” It’s what’s implied in the action that counts. If a woman (or man) wants to cheat, they’ll find a way to do it, with or without your knowledge. The only person who’s actions you can control are your own. Now, would it suck to break up a marriage over that? Yes, but I’d rather it be dissolved than to live disingenuously one minute longer than necessary.

If I locked my wife/GF up in a closet that only gives credence to my insecurity about my relationship and changes the nature of my LTR. In fact, in doing so the frame automatically transfers to a woman the moment you become possessive, because you confirm for her that you lack the confidence to generate new options (i.e stimulate competition anxiety) – to be a man that other women would desperately want should she decide to cheat. You must be a Man that your GF/Wife doesn’t want to cheat on. Sometimes a woman can’t appreciate this because she’s too immature to get it, but you have to be the Man confident enough to say “do what you want” while communicating higher value. As I’ve stated before, when your silence inspires more dread than your words, you’re probably an Alpha.

A lot of guys have a real tough time with possessiveness. What they tend to overlook is the element of desire. If you’ve got a girl who want’s to go off with the girls to Vegas for a weekend the operative in the whole situation is that she WANTS to go. While I do understand the necessity of ‘mate protection’ this desire is already established BEFORE you issue any ultimatum (which is a declaration of powerlessness). If she had a fear of loss to begin with she would’ve passed on the trip because she had a genuine desire to do so. In fact considering it wouldn’t even be an afterthought.

This is the Desire Dynamic – you can never force a genuine desire by means of coercion or negotiation. You can pay a woman to fuck you, it doesn’t mean she wants to fuck you of her own volition. The girl still wants to go to Vegas even if her man were to give her an ultimatum, and in addition he comes off as an optionless, possessive chump. I realize the idea is that if he’s uncompromising and she magically respects him she’ll develop a real interest level in him because he put his foot down as a “real man”, but the damage is still done. Her desire isn’t for him, it’s for Vegas, even if she says “OK honey, you win”. It’s not genuine.

121 comments   |  tags: | posted in Alpha, Game, Idealizations, Plate Theory, Sexual Market Value

August 20, 2012

The Warrior Gene – Is Alpha Genetic?

By Rollo Tomassi

Try this link if you can’t get YouTube in your country:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/adventure/adventure-sports/ngc-born-to-rage-1/

I held off on posting this video because it’s about 45 minutes long and I figured most readers would probably want to watch it at their leisure (rather than on their ‘valuable’ work time), but it’s well worth the investment.

Any time I write about defining Alpha or detail my interpretations of Alpha as a dynamic it’s always cause for heated debate. People are always conflicted on the issues of what biological, attitude or character traits makes a Man Alpha, and as I’ve detailed before there’s always a want to force Alpha into a definition that would best describe ourselves.

Beyond this there’s the question of what makes a Man, naturally (genetically?) an Alpha, and what factors make him a learned Alpha or a contextual Alpha as situations warrant. I’ve covered all of these interpretations in the past year, but it wasn’t until I watched this episode of National Geographic Explorer that I became aware of the concrete genetic evidence of (or at least a genetic indicator) Alpha. I’ll try not to be too much of a spoiler here, because watching this video through a manosphere, Alpha-Beta filter should be enough to give most of my readers a new insight to how Alpha can be defined.

Biological Determinism

For a lot of guys subscribing to the idea that Alpha is built upon manly virtue and noble intent, your first impression of a biological Alpha-determinant will likely be one of disbelief, or incredulity. Watch the video to the end. You’ll probably come up with rationalizations about how a biological predisposition for violence does not an Alpha make, and how humans aren’t slaves to their biology or instinct. You’ll be pleasantly surprised by the end of the show.

That said, while watching this here are some things to think about:

  • Is Alpha both nature and nurture?
  • How does this propensity for violence and /or a biologically motivated dynamism agree with our present defining of Alpha?
  • Does an ability, or lack thereof, to channel this natural (genetic) impulse toward constructive or destructive ends change the definition of Alpha?
  • How does the idea of a biologically defined Alpha evolutionarily agree with what we understand about Hypergamy? (War Brides, the attraction of violence, rape fantasy, etc.)
  • Can Alpha be learned and internalized or faked in the long term convincingly?
  • Is genuine Alpha status earned or determined, or perhaps both? (don’t answer until you watch the end of the video)

This study has given me a lot more to think about in terms of how we define Alpha, but it correlates well with my prior Alpha concepts. Alpha is a mindset, not a demographic.

I will do a followup on this post once readers have had the chance to view and opine.

44 comments   |  tags: , , | posted in Alpha, Hypergamy

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,511 other followers