Category Archives: Biomechanics

February 1, 2013

Male Sexual Response

By Rollo Tomassi

This now cancelled show was the brainchild of the creators of Mate Check.

The short version of this is basically this is a “service” that tests (attorneys call this entrapment) a man’s fidelity by setting up an encounter with an attractive woman who approaches them in an effort to see if the man will ‘bite’ and seek out more intimate contact with her. Generally this service is paid for by insecure women involved in LTRs. I should also add that 100% of men so tested fail the test and pursue the attractive woman.

Salacious, stupid, and basically everything you’d expect from a FOX reality show, but also a very interesting social experiment. This is Social Matching Theory in practice. If you’re approached by a woman obviously not in (what you believe) is your “league” and she’s expressing blatant IOIs and approaches you, it’s much the same as the ‘Stripper Effect.’ Men are so accustomed to having to be the initiators and dealing with rejection (and potential rejection) that they’ll willingly pay for the attentions of an attractive woman giving them a $20 lap dance and this becomes physically and psychologically gratifying.

In this scenario, the element of plausibility is introduced (as a bait). You can say that these guys took the bait because they were already predisposed to do so because of their foundering relationships, but I’d argue that few men (if any according to the stats on this site) would turn down an exceptionally attractive and visibly sexually available woman if she were inclined to be as forward as to actively seek out a man and pursue him.

I’ve read psych experiments where attractive college age women approached men they’d never met on campus and proposed having sex with them after 20 minutes of converstaion. Close to 100% of the men accepted the offer (much like this service), but when an attractive college age man performed a similar experiment with women the acceptance rate was around 60%. I think that this service is playing to this very dynamic.

Now here’s a thought, do you suppose the ‘investigators’ at Mate Check get a picture of their mark and match him up with a girl they think he will believe he could get? I would think they’d have to have a variety of women “investigators” of varying levels of attractivness in order to allay suspicion. For instance, a hugely overweight guy (unless he’s very stupid, despreate or both) would be skeptical (at first) to believe that a stripper grade woman would thorw herself at him voluntarily. So I wonder if Mate Check matches like for like in attractiveness when running their scam?

Disinfecting Sunshine

Sunshine Mary think’s she’s busted some manosphere myth today in asserting (with entirely anecdotal points) that men don’t necessarily have to be hitched to a frigid or obese woman to be moved to cheat. I’m inclined to agree, however, those factors are what behavioral psychologists term Establishing Operations:

Establishing operations work by changing the reinforcement properties of a reinforcer. If a reinforcer is made to be more reinforcing, the consequence will be more desirable which should have a greater effect on eliciting the target behavior. Establishing operations for reinforcers make us want something more that we might have.

Ergo, hunger, thirst, and yes, sexual deprivation can be considered establishing operations, thus making satisfaction of those operation much more potent reinforcers.

For her part, I’m afraid that Mary’s isn’t going to like what crawls out from under the rock she’s just turned over. What she’s digging at here is the nature of the male sexual response, and as with most women, she expects that response to align with a feminine-centric interpretation of it. Women’s solipsistic nature predisposes them to define the male sexual response in ways that make sense to what their own response is.

As I stated in Women & Sex, until a woman lives in 12.5 to 17 times her present testosterone levels 24/7 she cannot ever understand male sexuality. And since she lives in a fem-centric reality (both personally and socially) her awareness and expectations of male sexuality is defined by the only terms she has a frame of reference for – female sexuality.

So it should come as no shock that women are bewildered (and disgusted) by a male sexual response that is incongruent with their own. They want to force fit it. In the Feminine Reality I stated:

For one gender to realize their sexual imperative the other must sacrifice their own. This is the root source of power the feminine imperative uses to establish its own reality as the normative one.

One of the reasons I repeatedly assert that women lack a fundamental appreciation for the sacrifices men make to facilitate their reality finds its roots in women’s lacking a male frame of reference. In general, Men are far more self-controlled than any woman can realistically understand. When we analyze the realities of the male sex response and the underlying biology that contributes to it, the control men exert over it is actually a triumph of evolved psychology and social directive.

As Men we take this control for granted because (for most) it’s a living state for us – even we don’t apprciate how controlled we really are over our sexual impulse. We live in a condition of controlling this drive, but the drive still motivates us.

Women are shocked that men are literally, neurologically wired to see them as sex objects. The parts of our brains that are attuned to using tools is stimulated when we see scantily dressed women. Women may be horrified by this, but one thing you will never hear them utter is a word of how astounding it is that men (largely) have such psychological self-control over it.

56 comments   |  tags: | posted in Biomechanics, Psychology, The Feminine Imperative

January 24, 2013

The New Thin

By Rollo Tomassi

new_thin

My Reddit Q&A on Monday generated a lot of good questions:

Ever notice on Facebook, when ever an average/fugly/fat chick post’s her picture you have like ten women (only women) chime in with their comments under the picture saying stuff like “HOT!” “you’re so pretty!” “damn you look good” when in fact she isn’t?!

Are women trying to make their not so attractive friend feel better about herself?! Or is there another scheme involved here of setting the bar low in order to boast their own attractive scale up.

I see, hear and read this constantly. What we’re observing however is a carefully constructed feminine social convention, and a feminine-combative one at that. By tacitly reinforcing the “good looks” of an obviously overweight woman with positive compliments, the latent message is that she doesn’t need to improve her looks to attract men. The truth of course is that she could be semi-fuckable after dropping another 15 pounds, but in telling her she’s hot ‘as-is’ the idea, in the form of an encouraging compliment, is to get her to relax and stay fat. Thus the complimenter(s) simultaneously feel relaxed in their fat.

It’s really a socialization attempt by less physically appealing women to regulate the sexual market in favor of themselves.

I can remember experiencing this firsthand long before the advent of social media. In the days I worked in the resort casino industry, I was in the lunchroom with the largely (heh) female advertising department and the conversation came up about how some woman in accounting was “too thin” or she need to gain some weight. I emphatically disagreed; I knew the woman they were going on about and she could’ve lost 10 pounds and still been overweight. The ladies lost their shit when I said she could stand to lose a few pounds and hit the gym more often. The hens practically pounded the table with their fists and the accusations of misogyny, and the old chestnuts about men’s “shallow” desires for the physical all flew wild and furious.

You see all the women at the table were as heavy if not heavier than the woman in question. I had insulted the herd by association.

The funny thing about body image is that most people tend to judge obesity based on their own physique. If you’re overweight and your regular peer group is fatter than you, you tend to think you’re “normal”. It’s similar to eating a donut from a box someone’s brought to work for all to enjoy. If one person is eating a donut it tacitly gives others “permission” to enjoy one too.

I was once at a distillery in Panama with a group of Dutch people I work with and a stunningly attractive Panamanian secretary asked me if I was Dutch. I told her, no, I was American and she said “oh, you don’t ‘look’ American. I laughed at this for a minute and asked her what an American ‘looks’ like and she said, “well, they’re all fat.” I took it as a compliment, but I had to agree with her.

Books and Covers

You can’t judge a book by it’s cover, but more often than not, it’s a good indicator of what the story’s about. An attractive cover should make the reader want to read it.

Women have far more rigid prerequisites for what makes an acceptable man for an LTR than men do for women. Women base their estimate of a man on his confidence, status, affluence, looks, humor, intellect, creativity, ambition, determination, decisiveness,..and the list goes on. Men’s requisites for intimacy? Looks and sexual availability, that’s it. Beyond that, you can make a case for any ephemeral quality that convinces you the girl’s worth your long term investment, but if she’s not hot enough to keep your physical interest, you’re going to look elsewhere to make up for it.

Yet what is the single most common shaming tactic women use for men? Painting them as ‘shallow‘ for requiring her to maintain a good shape and be sexually available. Men have far too much on the line in the long term NOT to be concerned with demanding the highest standard from a woman for an investment that goes beyond anything she could hope to genuinely appreciate or match by other means. For all of the personal investment a man must make in himself to meet women’s ‘attraction prerequisites’, it only makes pragmatic sense that his (physical) standards for women be strict and exact.

It’s really up to you to make the judgement call, but by no means should you allow accusations of superficiality influence your decision in that. As a Man, you are well within your rights to expect a maintained physique from a woman, considering the far greater sacrifices she expects from you. Would you leave her if she got fat? Damn right you would. Would she leave you if you went beta-listless-unemployed-alcoholic? Damn right she would.

All that said, what it really comes down to is the reason why this girl lost the weight. There are plenty of fresh divorcees frenetically working out at Planet Fitness in the hopes of reconditioning themselves enough to attract another husband – only to fatten up again once she finds the guy who “loves her for who she is”. Women who once were fat, who slim down are prone to this. That’s not to say there aren’t women who make a definitive lifestyle change and go from being a walrus to a Fitness America Pageant contestant and parley that into modeling or  personal training career, but these are the most rare and notable exceptions.

I should also point out that it’s a uniquely White Knight habit to publicly defend a woman’s body image insecurities in order to get the identification / affirmation strokes they believe endears them to women. I hear these guys parrot back the same lines women self-affirm when talking about their body shape or trying to disqualify a sexual competitor, in an effort to be more ‘like’ the women they hope to get with. The idea is that they believe they’ll be rewarded for taking the “fat acceptance, love-who-you-are” tact and be perceived as more modern or up with the right conventions, and that guy’s who actually have the temerity to say they prefer a tight body are the neanderthals – again, to disqualify their own sexual competitors.

The Mechanics of Sexual Selection

Whenever the ‘fat is OK’ debate pops up all it does is serve to further illustrate yet another feminine social convention. All of these conventions are sociological and psychological methodologies with the latent purpose of securing breeding opportunities for less than physically optimal women.

  • Point 1: Women know on an instinctual, biological level that, overall, men generally base their breeding selection on the physical conditions of a female. Hips to waist ratio, breast size, facial symmetry, fullness of lips, youthful appearance, etc.

  • Point 2: In order to compete with similar women in meeting the physical standards of a given demographic of men, women must create physical methods in order to compensate for this deficit. Thus they have make up, cosmetic surgery, high-heels, hair dye, etc.

  • Point 3: Failing this, sociological and psychological constructs are necessary to ‘level the playing field’ in the sexual marketplace. Thus, fat, out of shape women attempt to convince men to feel ashamed for wanting a physically superior female by converting that desire into shame. It becomes superficiality. Likewise, older women who’s sexual marketability wanes with every passing year, must create social constructs that praises the sexual prowess of older women.

Women have been trying to convince themselves for centuries that there ought to be more to sexual attraction for men than physical appeal, and for centuries this method has been thwarted by simple male biology. Rather than play the game better, they attempt to change the rules of the game to better fit their own limitations in a variety of ways.

The problem with the idea that “it’s what’s inside that counts” is that it’s what’s outside that arouses. All the “feeling good about your body” that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.

217 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Biomechanics, Operative Social Conventions

January 7, 2013

Queens, Workers & Drones

By Rollo Tomassi

mount

As I’ve stated in many prior posts, it is Men, not women who are the True Romantics. It is actually Men who will more readily alter their lives in the most radical of ways to achieve what they think is an idyllic state of monogamy with their ‘Woman of Quality’. I understand how this statement may conflict with women’s (and mangina symp’s) characterizations of ‘typical guys’ just wanting to fuck anything that smiles at them, but this sentiment is only designed to maintain the feminine as the victimized gender.

It is in fact Men who are more prone to wanting commitment from a woman. The operative word here is “wanting” commitment.

Men are now also just as likely to want to get married as women and more likely to fall in love at first sight.

Experts said that the results were evidence of ‘gender blurring’ in which women have become more like men and men have taken on the characteristics usually associated with women.

I doubt that last quote from this article will shock my regular readers. Considering that the overwhelming majority of men are corn-fed betas, raised from birth to be devoted, “supportive”, wives to their masculinized fem-husbands, it’s really no surprise that men would be the ones seeking solace in a monogamy they’ve been conditioned to believe should be their goal-state for so long.

While betas are concerned with qualifying for an idyllic monogamy, Alphas tend to focus more on fidelity – their women’s fidelity, not necessarily their own.

Feminized Commitment

One very effective meme the feminine imperative has cunningly inserted into our social awareness is the feminine ownership of the term ‘commitment’. Calling a guy a ‘commitment-phobe’ is really a 90′s shaming cliché that’s been a retread for the Man Up! generation. There are different variation of this shaming – a guy can be ‘phobic’ because he lacks maturity, or because he’s become bitter and burned by a spurned woman, but underneath all that is the association that the concept of commitment uniquely applies to a man committing to monogamy with a woman.

From the Paradox of Commitment:

The idea is that commitment should only have meaning in a feminine defined reality. Ironically, it’s Men who commit far more readily to ideals, family, military, business ventures or partnerships, and servitude than women have the capacity to appreciate, because recognizing this doesn’t serve their imperative. In other words, a commitment to anything that doesn’t directly benefit the feminine isn’t commitment; answer? Redefine commitment to reflect feminine interests.

One thing that needs to be understood about women’s innate feminine solipsism is how it’s expressed on a meta-scale. It’s very easy to observe and consider individual examples of women’s subconscious sense of self-importance (read any comment from women on a manosphere blog) , but what most men aware of this phenomenon don’t consider is how this solipsism scales up to the larger social narrative.

I’ve written extensively about the Feminine Reality and Feminine Social Primacy, but these have been ‘top down’ assessments with regard to how society follows a feminine primary narrative as the correct premise of origin. Put simply, if it benefits women, it benefits society – society is better when benefiting women’s imperatives are its focus.

However, from a ‘bottom up’ perspective it is this proclivity for solipsism in women that collectively becomes the social narrative (or paradigm if you prefer). Millions of women solipsistically expressing the demands that would ensure a secure hypergamy for themselves makes for a fem-centric social narrative. And from this develops an expectation of, and entitlement to a default, secured commitment to satisfying women’s hypergamic impulses.

Selective Breeding

So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

But to breed a better worker, the feminine imperative’s queens can’t afford to have any corrupting, masculine, outside influence. On a societal scale this might mean removal (either by disincentives or forcibly) of a father from the family unit, but this is the easy, extreme illustration. There are far more subtle social and psychological means that the imperative uses to effect this filtering – via mass media, social doctrines, appeals to (feminized) morality, the feminine is placed as the correct imperative while the masculine is filtered out or apologetically tolerated as vestiges of an immature and crude reminder of masculinity’s incorrectness.

Yet for all of this social engineering Hypergamy still demands satisfaction of women’s most base imperative, Alpha seed. The queens need physically / psychologically dominant drones – if just for a season and at their ovulatory pleasure. While beta workers are endlessly vetted in sisyphean tasks of qualifying for the acceptance of the feminine imperative, the Alpha drones live outside this shell; their qualifications only based on how well they satisfy the feminine’s visceral side of  hypergamy.

The great irony of this social solution to hypergamy and long term parental investment is that the vast majority of the offspring of this arrangement would be raised to be better workers. Those betas-to-be boys must be insulated from the corrupting influence of the drones lest they devolve into the Alphas they crave yet cannot control. It may seem counterintuitive, to raise what should ostensibly be optimized genetic stock as a cowed, sometimes medically restrained, feminized beta males. However it is through this harsh conditioning that truly dominant Alphas must rise above. Essentially the genetic lottery isn’t won by women in such a social environment – it’s men, or the ones who rise above in spite of the conditioning efforts of the feminine imperative.

Generation AFC

We’re just now seeing the results of almost three generations of this selective breeding effort. While women bleat and bemoan, “Man Up!” over the lack of suitable men to meet both their hypergamy and their provisioning, they only grind their teeth at the results of a social momentum set in motion by women two or three generations before them. While more boys are raised to pee sitting down by women concerned that their sons’ testosterone poisoning will make him a potential rapist, the fewer and fewer “suitable” males present themselves 20 years later.

A lot has been made about men just checking out or giving up on themselves as they reach a projected notion of maturity. The feminine complains about them not living up to the standard set before them by the feminine imperative – women are owed reverence and tribute of an enduring security, why are men not sacrificing themselves on the altar of the goddess? In the face of all the so called social advancements in women’s independence over the past 50 years we still hear a deafening cry for ‘real men’ to measure up, to qualify themselves for acceptance, to be worthy of providing for her and (her) offspring. Despite the refutations of masculinity and claims of independence, women still want Men.

In the manosphere it’s been argued that the reason for this sexual disparity and men’s ambivalence is due to some new awareness among men of the way the Game has been rigged against them. It’s been argued that men are consciously opting out – going their own way – in some new social movement causing a de facto ‘marriage strike’. I think this estimation is greatly exaggerated.

The male crisis of this generation isn’t the result of men’s conscious decision to opt out, but rather due to being forced out by this selective breeding. As exampled in my first link, men want to get married. It’s part of their feminized conditioning to view long term monogamy as a goal state. No, the men that women want to “man up” are the ones they’re already married to, or the ones they’d consider worthy if only they acted (not actually became) more like drones and less like dutiful workers.

It’s not that the vast majority of men wouldn’t eagerly bind themselves to women in monogamy, it’s that they’ve been bred in grand proportions to be ‘less-than-men’ by the feminine imperative.

130 comments   |  tags: , | posted in Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Idealizations, The Feminine Imperative

December 26, 2012

Too Hot

By Rollo Tomassi

too_hot

Over the Christmas break I had Dalrock and several SoSuave members alert me to a recent story about the firing of a dental assistant for “being too attractive”. I’d thought it was pretty laughable at first glance, but there’s a lot more going on in this situation than just what’s on the surface here. Naturally the fem-centric media starting point is the egregiousness of the all-male Iowa high court unanimously agreeing that a woman could be fired for something other than her job performance. It’s always interesting to observe the legal twistings when when the feminine imperative smacks into a law it hasn’t yet distorted to its own purposes (like right-to-work laws). I’m sure the case will be taken up the chain to even higher courts, but the operative will be the same – women don’t want to be beholden to general laws that conflict with the feminine imperative. Give it time and new definitions of what constitutes sexual discrimination, and you’ll see how fluidly the imperative achieves its ends.

Beyond the indignation prompting social fallout, there’s an interesting illustration in Game theory here. Melissa Nelson, a semi-attractive 32 year old dental assistant has her 10 year employment stint terminated by 53 year old Dentist, James Knight for representing too tempting a  potential lover and too potential a threat to his marriage. This is where it gets interesting:

Nelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.

Well, considering all she wore were standard issue medical scrubs it would appear that it didn’t take much to arouse the good dentist.

While her former boss claimed her clothes were so tight he couldn’t look at her without being aroused, Nelson said the only outfit she wore to work was standard scrubs worn by many nurses and assistants in dental offices.

Think about this for a moment, when Knight hired her 10 years ago she would’ve been 22 and he would’ve been 43. Looking at the more recent pictures of Nelson, I can see she’s followed the standard SMV curve, and while I wouldn’t rate her higher than maybe a cleaned up HB7, no doubt Knight was privy to watching her progress from her SMV peak at 22, to the inevitable two child, postpartum “chop it short” mommy-do at 32. After watching this and enduring the slow-burn, sexual pangs for a decade I suspect that Knight probably spent in inordinate amount of masturbatory energy on her mental image.

He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, “that’s like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it.”

No doubt about, we’ve got a beta here. Blatant and obviously telegraphed sexual interest ham-fisttedly delivered  as a compliment not only belies the beta, but no woman in human history has ever responded positively to it. In all my time counseling in the manosphere I’ve heard some derivative of this line constantly used by beta orbiters hoping that their ONEitis will get the message that she’s not being treated as well as she should be, and he’s uniquely qualified to appreciate her for her rarity. What chumps like Knight don’t get is that genuine desire and sexual impulse cannot be negotiated.

All a long-married beta like Knight is doing is falling back on his adolescent social skill set. This is the hallmark of a chump who’s never developed his Game beyond what it took to convince his wife to marry him.

Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight’s wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.

Once you see the pictures of Mrs. Knight all of this crystalizes for us.

mrs_knight

Now we add in the element of Mrs. Knights suspicion and a healthy dose of parochial shame from their pastor (most likely at Mrs. Knights behest) and we see the good dentist moved to terminate “just an ordinary mom”.  Here we see an all too common theme of the feminine imperative; using men to settle a score between women. My guess would be that had Mrs. Knight not discovered said texts, Nelson in all her ‘hotness’ would still be employed.

Knight is a very religious and moral individual, and he sincerely believed that firing Nelson would be best for all parties, he said.

I generally reserve my interpretations of the religious ramifications of Game to blogs like Dalrock’s, but at the risk of encouraging the moralist commenters on my blog, I have to draw attention to how the feminine imperative influences religious perceptions. This very religious and moral individual in all likelihood had been devising scenarios in his head about how he might engage in some kind of sexual tryst with Nelson through out her peak SMV years. He watched her progress through a relationship, watched her get married, gave her maternity leave when she had two kids, and still he pined. That pining only ended when Mrs. Knight demanded Nelson’s termination. Once again, biology trumps conviction, and did so for a decade, but once his back is to the wall he makes necessity a virtue.

Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month’s severance. He later told Nelson’s husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.

When you compare James Knight to David Petreaus’ situation you can’t help but notice some surface level similarities. Both married to well-past the Wall wives and open (at least ideally) to getting with younger, better looking women. Their stories are an all too common theme in today’s SMP. Just based on what I see from the pictures, Knight strikes me as that archetypal mature guy who married young (well before fully realizing his true SMV), played by the rules, and probably only woke up to his SMV when a hot 22 year old made him realize his past potential. When a guys like this make sexual allusions comparing undriven Lamborghinis to the objects of their sexual desire, the real message is their own sexual dissatisfaction with their wives. Harboring that angst for 10 years while your ‘too hot to work with’ ONEitis is only infrequently getting banged is a special kind of beta hell.

When I wrote about the redefining of men’s mid-life awareness, Knight’s circumstance is the uglier side of that.

The truth about men’s mid-life crises isn’t about recapturing youth, it’s about finally understanding the trappings they’ve been sold into through their 20′s and 30′s and coming to terms with that often horrible truth. Some men do in fact buy the sports car, get the new hottie wife or act in some fashion that appears reckless and irresponsible. This isn’t due to infantilism, but rather new understanding of their own position as men. They’ve “lived responsibly” for so long and for so little appreciation that when that true realization is made they feel the need to move. They’ve become respected, put in the hours, the sacrifice, the censoring of their own views. They realize now that they’ve sold off true passions in favor of maintaining what others have told him was his responsibility – whether it was his choice or not. And all for what? A fat wife? A shrew? Maybe even a fantastic marriage and a wonderful family life, but also a nagging doubt about not seeing enough of the world by 40 because of it.

Now, before it gets said, I’m not suggesting that Knight have gone ahead and got after it with Nelson (if that was ever a consideration), but I do understand his predicament and the motivators behind it. If anything Knight serves as yet one more warning for men in realizing their SMV too late. The real tragedy here is that for a brief moment Knight was becoming aware of his (waning) SMV only to reinsert himself back into the Matrix with the aid of his wife and pastor. The real damage will be dealt in his new need for constant repression of this knowledge every time he bangs his wife, every time she nags, every time she gives him that doe-like thousand yard stare; he’ll understand the oldest manosphere proverb – once you know about the Matrix there is no going back.

122 comments | posted in Biomechanics, Case Studies, Idealizations, Sexual Market Value, The Feminine Imperative, The Matrix

December 4, 2012

The Couch

By Rollo Tomassi


Romance according to Tomassi, A Field Report

Oddly enough this happened last weekend so it’s still pretty fresh in my head. Friday night I was going to meet up with my partners for a holiday drink promo, but due to a scheduling error we cancelled it. Rather than call my wife to tell her I’d be coming home (which would only make her expectant of me), I waited until I was about 2 blocks from my home to call her on my cell phone. I said to her, “I’m thinking about doing something, if I blow off this thing tonight, I want you wear that hot, white lingerie I like when we fuck.” (presume the sale) I could tell I’d caught her off guard and I was telling her we were going to have sex later that evening (no asking permisson or “can we please fuck tonight?”). She laughed and said “uh sure,..”, this was right as I pulled into my driveway and I still had her on the phone when I walked in the door and said “OK, here I am.”

Our daughter was at a friend’s place so I made martinis for us and purposely only had a light one for myself. I used C&F on my wife while we chatted on the couch. Now, she’s used to this from me, but because I’d prefaced the evening with giving her the impression that I was taking time away from other things to come home and knock it out with her. She was eating it up and mirroring my advances back to me. I never saw the lingerie that night because we were too busy going at it right on the couch and then moving to the bedroom. I kept up the C&F while we were at it and there was no “let me get cleaned up before we do it” there was no “we better hurry it up so I can be asleep by 10:30″ – it was Game On and we had some fantastic sex all because I was setting the frame.

This is how you “keep it fresh.” Understand, this is the same woman I married 16 years ago. There were no roses, there was no ‘date night’, no wine or a candle lit dinner. There were martinis in my home and me setting the frame. And Monday I brought her a few flowers to reinforce a desired behavior.

Primary Focus

There’s a part in American Beauty where it looks like Kevin Spacey’s character is going to actually reconnect with his sexually ambivalent wife (actually she’s cheating on him, but we don’t discover this until later). They’re getting hot and bothered with each other for the first time in a long time on a very nice (and apparently expensive) couch.

This is significant because the guy and his wife are on the verge of divorce due to their lack of a sex life and for the first time in a long time she genuinely responds sexually for her husband, and you think for a moment there’s some hope for them.

As they get more into it his wife becomes fixaed on her husband’s hand holding a beer and almost spilling it on the couch that they’re on. He is totally focused on her, kissing her and not thinking about the beer in his hand. Her eyes are locked on the beer though until he finally notices what is distracting her from him – the beer.

He tries to take her mind off it by focusing more on her, and she becomes even more concerned that he’ll spill beer on the couch while they’re going at it. She says, “Lester you’re going to spill beer on the couch,..” he says, “it’s just a couch,..” she then gets indignant about how expensive it is and then he yells, “IT’S JUST A COUCH!”

Do you see what this gets at? This is the real challenge of marriage. Making desire and passion go beyond the mundane. That is what needs to be kept fresh in the face the routine. Single people in the throes of passion don’t care if a bottle of wine is spilled on the carpet in the process, married people do. Most marriages aren’t destroyed from the outside, but rather the inside. External temptations are easy to resist; it’s when it’s coupled with internal conditions that predispose us to it that it happens. Telling right from wrong is easy, determining right from right is difficult.

This is the perfect illustration of what marriage has become for most women – there is more attention directed toward externalities and little or none devoted to genuine desire. People experiencing genuine desire for one another don’t care about externalities. Nothing else exists to them but the object of their passion (and consummating it); there is no dirty laundry, no stain on a carpet, no neighbors who may hear them fucking, there is only them. Today’s couples don’t have a problem with trust or comfort or logistics, or even respect for the most part – what they have a problem with is desire. Men forget how to create it, women for get how to respond to it.

The New York Times had a recent article detailing the short shelf life of love (particularly in marriage). It’s essentially a fluff piece written by a woman obviously looking for an answer to her failing desire by expressing a similar lament for other women in her position. The irony of this article is that when men consider the biological / psychological reasons for why they want to bang other women, they’re shamed for lacking self-control or personal conviction. Let a woman do the same and it’s a new scientific discovery of self-enlightenment. I also thought the reframe about women actually being the more ‘novelty seeking’ of the sexes only lacquered on yet more irony.

Be that as it may, it’s interesting that the aspect of desire-killing familiarity is finally entering the popular consciousness in our feminine defined world. When you’re single, women love to prattle (mostly to betas and themselves) about how necessary it is for them to feel comfortable with a guy before having sex. Of course Alphas learn the lie of this earlier than most, but how telling it is then when the same comfort and familiarity that single women cry for is the marriage-killing factor that married women lament.

115 comments | posted in Biomechanics, Inter-gender Communication, Positive Masculinity, Romance

November 14, 2012

Case Study – Inspire Her

By Rollo Tomassi

My good friend Greasy Pig from the SoSuave forum needed some Game analysis.

Damn, Rollo! Now I’m starting to second guess myself. lol
One of my plates sent me a topless pic, so I responded very positively. I didn’t gush compliments, I just told her it was an awesome pic and she had nothing to be ashamed about with her body.

I was using the `reward good behaviour by giving her your attention’ philosophy.

Interestingly, she hasn’t sent any more pics. I’ve subtly suggested she should send more but she just laughs it off.
Maybe I shouldn’t have been so quick to respond? But how do you know when and what to reward with your attention?

Context is King.

The deductive (beta) response for a guy receiving a topless pic is to applaud it, encourage it and reinforce it in order to get more and / or confirm for himself that he’s “in there” with this girl.

The problem is that the attention you give her is in the context of your approval. Your approving of her topless pic satisfies her reason for sending it – male affirmation of her attractiveness. Once satisfied there’s no reason to send more, or really any reason to pursue a guy who will default to giving her unearned approval. Strippers know this dynamic well.

The counterintuitive (Alpha) response is a measured disapproval, or casual indifference. That disapproval shouldn’t be a negative rejection of her, but rather an invitation to try harder with the next one. This is exactly why short text-long response time Game is effective – it provokes imagination in women. Neg Hits are based on the same premise; redirection of qualification. Most of women’s shit tests can be circumvented or turned to your advantage by keeping your focus on redirecting her qualifications of you into her qualification for you.

Shit Tests (revisited)

The subconscious understanding is that a man with options (a presumptive Alpha) will be preoccupied with more important issues than a topless shot of some new girl he may or may not be interested in, and, is so flush with other potential women who are interested in him that hers may be one of many women’s boobs he’s seen previously or even that day.

Try to imagine the process of what went on in this girl’s head. She had to think about taking the shot and what it would prompt in you. She probably wore something she thought was sexy to cover the rest of her, looked herself in the mirror, posed, took the shot, reviewed the picture to make sure she looked good, then pressed ‘send’ and sent it to you. It may not seem it, but that’s a lot of complex decision making on her part.

The suspense, the imagination of what your response would be, all serve to stimulate that chemical rush she finds thrilling. You might think, “well duh Rollo, that’s the principle of ‘gina tingles”, but it’s really different because she is the one self-stimulating that rush, not a guy, not you. She may get tingles from your response, or her imaginings of how you’ll respond, but it’s the uncertainty that prompts the rush. Now think about the millions of ‘self-shooter’ girls doing exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reason.

When you immediately respond in the affirmative it ends the rush she wants to savor. Conversely, when you prolong that rush (and maybe add a bit of playful indignation) you stoke that Alpha fitness uncertainty in her even further. In a sense this puts you into the position of being her drug dealer – you’re the guy who gives her that rush. And like the junkie she is, she will pursue you to get it.

Right now this girl is laughing off your suggestions to send you more topless pics because you failed her shit test. A lot of men think that a shit test always comes in the form of bitchiness or sarcasm, but women test more often with lures of access to their sexuality as a measure of men’s Alpha fitness. And the more you suggest that she send you more pictures of her tits, the more certain she is that you aren’t the Alpha who gives her that rush.

You must inspire a woman to acts of sexual spontaneity, you can never ask for it. When you ask a girl “show me your tits” and she does, it’s great, but when she flashes you without asking, it’s inspired.

97 comments | posted in Biomechanics, Case Studies, Inter-gender Communication, Positive Masculinity

November 6, 2012

People are People

By Rollo Tomassi

 

One of the most predictably common responses I get when I read comments on other blogs or forums linking back to one of my own articles goes something like this:

“He’s a great writer, but it’s all such bullshit because people are people, everyone is different. We’re all individuals, there is no universal ‘human nature’.”

I will admit there was once a time when I would’ve had the same response. An integral part of our feminized, equalist conditioning teaches us to reject propositions of ‘human nature’ – really even venturing to guess about it – in favor of a blank slate philosophy. Equalism, the religion of feminism, cannot exist in a world predicated upon even a margin of common influence determined by our biology’s, our evolved psychology, or even evidence of the mechanics which account for that collective influence on human beings.

It’s not that most people subscribing to this wont admit to extrinsic influences on the individual when pressed, it’s just that they believe that freewill, conscious effort and determined conviction will lift the individual above their biological limitations and therefore the greater collective. And, in focussed concentration, on a by-person basis they’d probably be right. What they don’t account for is acknowledging the subconscious influence of extrinsic and intrinsic prompts that motivate human beings to hold those convictions in the first place. The evolutionary, innately biological limitations they wish to rise above aren’t “bugs” they’re “features”

The standard rationale fallback of the feminine mindset, NAWALT (“not all women are like that”) finds its roots in the individuated, experiential reasoning of the blank slate, “people are people” equalist reasoning. While I think that a wholesale rejection of individual personality development is an extreme, it’s merely the other sude of the extreme coin compared to a wholesale rejection of environmental and biological influences on personal development – then extrapolated to social and cultural extremes. This is where the “people are individuals” mindset flourishes.

Peripheries

When I was in college I was a competitive fencer (Epée and Sabre if you must know), and it was from my fencing coach that I learned a very valuable lesson in psychology. He told me, “When you are facing your opponent, concentrate your vision directly at where his eyes would be behind his face mask. You cannot possibly track the tip of his weapon with your eyes, and neither can you focus enough attention to follow all of his body movements.”  What I learned was that when you apply focus to that central point, your peripheral vision aids your subconscious understanding of what your opponent is doing. It’s in the uniting of this gestalt, peripheral awareness and a focused awareness that makes for the best competitors.

Human beings have an amazing capacity to multi-task, but a real trained focus on multiple sources of stimuli was problematic for us in our evolutionary past. Too much constant stimuli leads to sensory overload and a breakdown in functionality, which then proves fatal if we’re distracted from reacting to a lethal threat. Thus we evolved psychological mechanisms to push less (though still) important information to the peripheries of our conscious awareness, to afford us a mental acuity on information of the more importance.

An entire world goes on around us that we are only peripherally aware of, and in some senese only exists in our peripheral consciousness. For instance, at this moment you’re probably focusing your attention on this text on a computer monitor or maybe a mobile device, but in your peripheral vision you interpret and understand that there are other things in the environment with you, pictures on the wall, a cabinet, maybe a nearby printer, etc. You’re reading this text, but you know they’re there. If someone threw a ball at your head right now you’d reflexively react to it by focusing your awareness on the incoming projectile.

Our conscious awareness works much in the same way. We push less pressing information and conditional awarenesses to the peripheries of our awareness and concentrate on more pressing information until such time (if ever) that we choose to adress those issues. Sometimes we call this insight, but it’s really the focused effort of applying our consciousness to conditions, thoughts and self-acknowledgements that we have pushed to our peripheral awareness. For instance, I’m typing and concentrating on what I’m writing here, but in my peripheral awareness I know I have a meeting to attend in a few hours, and deeper than that I know I’m a 44 year old married father and how am I going to make a significant impact on the world in my next 10 years?

One of my personal, foundational theories about psychology is that people are intimately aware of their own conditions.

On some level of consciousness people understand what has influenced them, what has motivated or demotivated them. They may only be peripherally aware of those conditions, they may be more introspective of them, but they understand that those influences exist for them. For as much as a single mother may say she’s not looking for a supportive father figure for her child, she still knows, if only peripherally, the reality of her condition as a single mother. A post-Wall, childless never-married woman of 38 is intimately aware of her condition and the reality that comes from that.

This isn’t to say that people are all-knowing about what creates these conditions, but it is to say that we are aware of them. In fact I’d argue that for the better part most people are unaware of the origins of their conditions until someone or something with a broader perspective can bring them into an awareness of their origins, but they realize the conditions that contribute to their present state.

The Devil Biology Made Me Do It

A large part of the red pill perspective leans on evolutionary psychology. Of course evo-psych isn’t the only factor in red pill awareness, but for the vast majority of Game deniers (people unaware of the origins of their conditions) this poses a problem of convenience. When the revelations of evo-psych agree with our comfortable social models and ego-investments we’re all too happy to embrace the science. But when the science shows us the more uncomfortable truths about evolved human nature, the reaction is to either question the ‘science’ or blame the moral conviction, resolve and character of the person/people expressing that aspect of human nature.

Presently we have an active debate on SoSuave all sparked by a woman decrying the evils of ‘men behaving badly’ (i.e. not in accordance with the feminine imperative), and her presumption that those men find a convenient absolution for that behavior in blaming how nature has made men ‘the way they are.’ This of course is the inconvenient flip side to the War Brides phenomenon, but the basis of her argument is rooted blank slate individuated equalism.

Hypergamy (an evolved species-survival schema) doesn’t care about personal conviction, freewill or definitions of moral behavior, it just is.  So in the interests of perpetuating the best interests of one sex (and by extension the entire species) social and cultural norms fluidly evolve around it to accommodate what’s really an uncomfortable aspect of our humanity. Can Hypergamy be controlled? Can men’s sexual impulses be tempered? Of course, but not without the effort of freewill, conviction and social structures. I know of precious few men who’ve blamed their infidelity or sexual impulsivity solely upon their biological makeup. With the exception of the more natural Alphas, more often than not it was a carefully calculated (Game) and coordinated event.

People don’t like the idea of not being in control of their lives and themselves, and they certainly wont tolerate the uncontrollable extrinsic reasons for other’s behaviors. We like the idea of personal responsibility, because it implies order in an otherwise chaotic world. In fact, due to this, people are far more likely to attribute their failings to their own personal decisions. It may be a confession of a lack of their own control, but it still implies that they once had that same control to lose and can again regain it.

I’ve written in the past that nature trumps conviction, and I still hold to that estimation. People have called me to the carpet over that assertion, but I don’t think they really understand what I mean by it. The nature is the environment in which we live in, the nature is the condition. Conviction, freewill or even notions of morality cannot exist if ‘nature’ isn’t the dominant, operative environment we exist in. It’s not that we can’t rise above our natures, it’s that we should have to in the first place.

37 comments | posted in Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Psychology

November 1, 2012

Mate Guarding

By Rollo Tomassi

Ah, another week, another fantastic article from the Chateau. I found this particular post interesting because the study (once again by our friend Dr. Martie Haselton) he breaks down here confirms virtually everything I was developing in Your Friend Menstruation. It pretty much sums up in no uncertain terms what I was detailing about how women in their folicular (proliferative) phase of menstruation become more sexually aroused by men exhibiting Alpha physical traits and behavioral cues.

However, Heartiste and this study go one step deeper than just the observable arousal from Alpha cues. It also demonstrates women’s observable aversion (disgust) to beta cues in men during the same menstrual fertility phase.

At their most fertile period, these women are less likely to feel close to their mates and more likely to find fault with them than women mated to more sexually desirable men, the research shows.

“A woman evaluates her relationship differently at different times in her cycle, and her evaluation seems to be colored by how sexually attractive she perceives her partner to be,” said Martie Haselton, a professor of psychology and communication studies at UCLA and senior author of the study.

Through a series of high-profile studies, Haselton’s lab has revealed telling changes that take place in women’s behavior during ovulation. Possibly to increase the odds of attracting suitable mating partners, these behaviors include a tendency to dress up and to speak in a higher-pitched, more feminine voice and — in a potential inbreeding-avoidance mechanism — to refrain from contact with male kin. In addition, the lab has found that women whose mates are less sexy and masculine tend to be more attracted to other men during the few fertile days leading up to ovulation.

The researchers found that women mated to the less sexually attractive men were significantly more likely to find fault with their partners and, again, feel less close to their partners during the high-fertility period than the low-fertility period. Women who rated their mates as more sexually attractive, meanwhile, did not exhibit these changes and instead reported being more satisfied with their relationship at high fertility than at low fertility. [emphasis mine]

Most of this I elaborated on in Your Friend Menstruation, however Heartiste then gave me some food for thought here right after this research finding:

When a man’s woman is being bitchy, the problem is him, but not in the way most men would think. Most men will promptly resort to DEFCUNT Level 1 Beta Supplication Mode to appease their harridans, thinking, wrongly, that their women are bitchy because they haven’t gotten enough signs of commitment and support from their partners. And who could blame these men for thinking this? When nagging, inconsolable women lob heat-of-the-moment accusations at their men, the accusations usually take the form of scattershot wails about one-size-fits-all conventional relationship issues that come straight from therapists’ hackneyed textbooks.

“You don’t care about me.” “You never listen.” “You don’t support this marriage like I do.” “You forgot to go food shopping AGAIN. How many times do I have to remind you?!”

So these beta men, quite reasonably, care harder, listen longer, support stronger, and buy enough groceries to fill a fat housewife’s appetizer plate. He reasons, “This is what she claims she wants, so this is what I’ll give her. And that should make her be nice to me like she was last week.”

In the meantime, the alpha male is now on his fifth year of forgetting to go food shopping, and his lover hasn’t bitched once about it

The subconscious default Beta behaviors Heartiste is alluding to here are exactly what I’d classify as Mate Guarding behavior. Appeasement, supplication, sensitivity, etc. are all the classic default behaviors Beta men will resort to in order to solve the “problem” of their mate’s apparent dissatisfaction with him. You see, the man with a Beta mindset earnestly believes that Beta Game is his best strength in attraction with women. So when something is wrong with his precious little snowflake he automatically defaults to upping the Beta.

The more Beta the man the more his proclivity to Mate Guard will be.

I realize this is a very bold statement, but judging from the principles of sexual selection and how women’s biology has evolved to better effect her innate, sexually pluralistic hypergamy, only less sexually arousing Beta men would have needed to psychologically evolve mate guarding mental schemas to protect their parental investments with biologically hypergamous women.

Furthermore, the more organically Alpha men would be rewarded not only with relational fidelity (for fear of losing the hypergamic optimization he represents to a woman), but also sexually due to women’s natural arousal by them during her fertility phase. You could also make the case that predominantly Alpha men would be less prone to mate guarding since their sexual selection and mating frequency would be greater than predominantly Beta men, but this is also further compounded by women’s biological arousal and sexual rewarding of Alphas as dictated by her menstrual cycle.

End result? Alpha men would have been less environmentally motivated to evolve mate guarding strategies that Beta men evolved as a contingency to women’s sexual pluralism (i.e. cuckoldry)

Beta Contingencies

In Mrs. Hyde I quoted yet another study by Dr. Martie Haselton from Why is muscularity sexy? (Aunt Giggles wept):

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.

Using strategic pluralism theory as a guide, we can see how mate guarding behavior in predominantly Beta men would have evolved out of necessity. While women (in the past) may have to face trade-offs in weighing genetics versus provisioning, vows of fidelity do little to quell her arousal for Alpha seed when she’s in the proliferate phase of her cycle. In fact I’d argue that the advent of monogamy and monogamous marriage itself is a mate guarding strategy evolved by the meta-interests of Beta men (the most numerous men).

Just to end this on a positive note, I think it’s important to remember that through Game, self-betterment physically & educationally and red pill awareness men aren’t doomed to the absolutes strategic pluralism outlines. In fact this theory, I think accurately, only defines the contingencies and logical outcomes of the SMP – it’s not outlining determinism, it’s illustrating probablism . It doesn’t mean a man can’t transform himself into a contextual Alpha.

48 comments   |  tags: | posted in Alpha, Biomechanics, Hypergamy, Sexual Market Value

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,614 other followers