Category Archives: Case Studies

Homosexuality

Sexual-fluidity

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Rollo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Gay Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feminist Gender Decisions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay Animals

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

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

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


Tales of Hypergamy — Recursive Game

scacchiste - Fotografo: internet

Noheroes from the SoSuave forum relates this for us:

Gentlemen, do as I do and grab yourself a tuck of bourbon and throw some Keith Jarrett on the hi-fi. There’s cold, cold snow on the ground and I’m here to regale you with a story sure to convince you that there are no women immune to game, no exceptions to hypergamy. The final pixel in the matrix has blinked out of existence for me, and I see the truth. Not finally, not complete, but I’m a believer. I’m in the midst of the hypergamy chapters of The Rational Male and the light has dawned.

In late November I met a girl at my business whom I was immediately attracted to. We had a drink, made out, groped a bit, and she went home (3.5 hours away). A month later she came into town, and on Christmas Eve we cooked dinner at a place she was housesitting, spent two hours naked in a hot tub, and made love three times over the next ten hours, including, well, entrances and exits on Christmas morning. We saw each other again a couple days later, made love again, then she left town. In early January I was passing through her town, spent the night, and we again slept together three times in a ten hour span.

This girl (let’s call her Helen) is feminine, nurturing, sexy, and highly intelligent. She’s been through tougher times than any member of this board who wasn’t a combat military member. She’d make a killer mother, she’s kinky as hell, she’s emotionally vulnerable yet demure, and she’s submissive and kind. She’s an HB8 (at least by my reckoning) and has a slamming yoga body. I have tremendous respect for her and we have a great connection. The only downside is she’s 33 and is realizing that the wall is coming up.

Helen and I are constantly flirty by text, but I don’t really do long distance relationships, so my plan of action was to just hook up and hang out whenever we were in each other’s towns. However, this afternoon (this very afternoon!) we had a phone conversation in which she related that she couldn’t be flirty with me anymore and also couldn’t sleep with me should we see each other again. Not exactly LJBF, due to the fact that she sent me an underwear selfie not ten minutes after this conversation ended, but close enough. A last sexy gasp, but a rejection nonetheless. Why, gentle readers, did this kind soul state that our trysts had ended? Hypergamy.

You see, there was a gentleman (we’ll call him Chip) who met Helen last March. He was just out of a five year relationship, but he didn’t tell Helen that. He was a little damaged, but in that kind of way where Helen felt that sometimes they had a connection, and then at other times couldn’t figure out what Chip felt about her. In December, Helen told a dear family member to make sure that Helen never hung out with Chip again. It was unhealthy! She was hooked and couldn’t figure out why, and had to stay away from Chip. As of a couple weeks ago, however, Helen resumed hanging out with Chip. This, dear friends, is why Helen couldn’t be flirty or sexual with me anymore.

I talked to Helen about this man in depth. There certainly was a part of me that wanted to negotiate desire, to convince her to stay away from Chip, to continue our prior arrangement. But I knew this was a fool’s errand. So I took a deep breath and asked myself – “Self, do you really want to see the end of the Matrix? Do you want to dispel your belief in a ‘quality’ woman? If there ever was a quality woman, it is Helen. Let’s see if truly hypergamy is inescapable.”

I asked Helen various questions about her feelings towards Chip, revealing my knowledge of hypergamy and explaining each step of her own behavior to Helen as I did so. “See there, Helen? That’s push-pull. Tension. He doesn’t realize he’s doing it, but he’s driving you crazy and making you feel attracted towards him. One minute he’s accessible, the next he isn’t. He doesn’t return your texts on time, if at all. This creates the hook!” She agreed, but I could tell there was no changing her mind. For the sake of science, I pressed onward. “See how you’re basing all of this conversation on the potential of the relationship, Helen? You think you can save him from his damage! There’s nothing actual there, you’re just backwards rationalizing it to suit the hook he’s set in you.” Again, she agreed intellectually. “He’s demonstrating to you his evolutionary suitability by being unavailable, utilizing tension, and being completely non-needy. His life is the same whether you’re in or out of it, and it drives you crazy and creates attraction simultaneously!” Mental assent but hindbrain denial continued.

At the end of the conversation, she stopped me in her feminine adorable voice and said “We need to not talk about this anymore, it just seems so hopeless. I don’t want the world to be that way!” I told her that it was that way, but I do believe it’s possible for good men to harness those powers and create deeply satisfying, honest relationships. However, hypergamy is always the driving force, and to leave it unacknowledged is to invite disrespectful beta disaster or alpha cad heartbreak.

Helen, despite the truth being presented to her in the most obvious way possible, and mirrored in her every behavior towards Chip, couldn’t accept the reality of hypergamy. If she can’t resist or change her behavior based on reason and knowledge of the truth, no woman can. The lesson, kind readers, is not that you must be evil to get the girl. It’s that hypergamy is the deciding factor in attraction for EVERY SINGLE WOMAN. There are no exceptions, no “quality” girls. They all succumb. It’s our job to make them succumb to us.

After all this, she still sent me the dirty pic.

While it is of course vital for a man to internalize the various fundamental truths about the nature of women (hypergamy, solipsism, Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks, love based on opportunism, etc.), these fundaments need to become an ambient condition for you in your dealings. This understanding needs to become an internal – under the surface – part of your interactions with women.

Too many guys think that all of this requires some endless capacity to psychologically micromanage every aspect of their interactions, not just with the women they become (or potentially become) intimate with, but also women they work with (or for), their mothers, sisters or daughters. A common reason men initially reject the practice (not necessarily the concept) of Game is due to some imagined expectation that they’ll need to cognitively account for every variable a woman may or may not be subjecting him or herself to.

When you think of Game as some act you put on or some cognitive fencing match between you and a woman it’s easy to believe it’s just too exhausting. That’s when one of two things usually happen; Game-awareness either sinks in and becomes part of his personality, or he relaxes and/or abandons what he’s learned of Game.

As you think so shall you become.

Neo: “What’re you trying to say, that I can dodge bullets?”

Morpheus: “No Neo, what I’m saying is that when you’re ready you wont have to.”

There comes a point of internalization when your Game-awareness becomes part of who you are. There is no longer a need to mentally sort out what may or may not be going on with the women you’re interacting with. One of the first resistances I usually read from men when they first pick up on Plate Theory is that they could never manage more than a single woman’s interest at one time. Usually this is due to a fear of being caught by one or more women or thought of as a Player, but the premise is one of not having some imagined resources, time and energy to keep more than a single plate spinning at once.

Do you see where this is going?

It’s all about his effort, and his time management, and his capacity or talent for juggling all the responsibilities necessary to convince and qualify for a woman’s effort towards him. He and his concerns are not his mental point of origin and so don’t factor into his concept of what Game could be for him. It’s always energy and resources flowing out, rather than even having the temerity of thought to think that a woman’s effort should come to him.

When Game is internalized for a Man, he is his mental point of origin. Game critics like to frame this self-concern as sociopathy or Dark Triad, but these distractions from putting himself as his mental point of origin have the latent purpose of keeping him extending himself outward. For as much as it’s rewarded, no one wants to be thought of as an asshole, but Game-awareness doesn’t necessitate being a selfish prick, just putting oneself as their mental point of origin.

Noheroes’ story is a lesson in the various  ways of coming to this internalized Game-awareness. I believe that Noheroes is making this transition through a lot of self-critical education. He had the foresight to keep Helen at a figurative arm’s distance. My guess is he knew her situation, being 33 and well on her SMV decline, and that single women during this phase are looking to lock down long-term commitment.

If I fault him for anything it was in his appeal to Helen’s reason when he pulled the cover off of the psychological and sociological underpinnings of what Chip actually meant to her and was (deliberate or not) doing with her. In doing so he laid all of his Game-aware cards on the table, and as has been discussed many times on RM, women may think they want the truth, but they never want full disclosure.

But perhaps (in the interests of science) this is what Noheroes intended. He essentially exposed Helen’s hypergamous (2nd chance Alpha Widow) behaviors and reasonings with the predictable results – women only want to play the game, they don’t want to know how it’s played.

For all of this, it’s actually Chip’s part that completes the Game circle. While Noheroes understands Game (and probably plays it well), and can explain it well enough, it’s Chip who’s effectively AMOG’d him without ever meeting him. I can’t say for certain that Chip isn’t self-aware of what he does, but my guess is he’s internalized Game to the point that it’s part of who he is. My guess is he’s a natural who’s had himself as his mental point of origin for so long that it’s just part of who he is – and being rewarded for it by the likes of Helen for so long that it’s naturally reinforced. Maybe he’s a natural sociopath as well, but this is immaterial to the internalizing of Game.

What were seeing here is a story of recursive Game – Noheroes even explains the process to Helen only to have her confirm her awareness of it, but still having a desire to participate in it.


Possession

possession

In my essay Casualties I described the situation of my sister-in-law and her first husband committing suicide.

The first guy I knew to commit suicide over a woman was my brother-in-law. I don’t like to go into too much detail about it as critics may think it’s my casus belli for getting involved in the manosphere, but suffice to say it was after a 20 year marriage and 2 children. My sister-in-law promptly married the millionaire she was seeing less than a year after he was in the ground. This is a real point of contention her family and I have with her, but it was his terminal  beta-ness / ONEitis conditioning that greatly contributed to his hanging himself. The psychologist in me knows there are plenty of imbalances that dispose a person to suicide, but I also know there are plenty of external prompts that make taking action more probable.

My brother-in-law hung himself as a response to having the unthinkable happen to him; his ONE, his soulmate, a woman he was very posessive of, was leaving him after 20 years of marriage (for a millionaire we discovered later). She was the ONLY woman he’d ever had sex with and had been (to the best of my knowledge) a faithful and dependable husband and father since they married at 18 and 19. He did the ‘right thing’ and married her when he’d gotten her pregnant at 17 and stuck by her, sacrificed any ambition he had and worked his ass off to send both his kids to college – an advantage he’d never achieve. He wasn’t a saint by any means, and I’m not going to argue my sister-in-law’s motivations, since those aren’t my point; my point is that he was an AFC who never came to terms with it and believed his life was only completed with his ONE. He literally couldn’t go on without her.

He couldn’t kill the beta (if he was even aware of it), so he killed himself.

This was back in 2003 and I’ll admit the trauma of this experience and the behavior and consequent mindset of my wife’s sister was a catalyst in waking me up to a much broader definition of feminine hypergamy. No longer was this curious term just about “the tendency of women to ‘marry up’ in status with men”, it was about an entire psycho-social dynamic written into women’s psychological firmware since birth. It was this experience that made me aware that hypergamy was an overriding psychological imperative based on a constant condition of doubt and uncertainty about how well she might optimize this hypergamy in measure with her capacity to attract men of equal or greater SMV than her own.

I’ll also admit this episode in my life was personally jarring for me when I considered that my own wife would necessarily be prone to the same predispositions. Her sister, a God-fearing evangelical ‘good girl’, had gone feral on the husband who’d done the right thing after knocking her up at 17 and married her and set about working his ass off for the next 20 years. She was already in the process of divorcing him when he decided a noose and a tree were a better option than living in a world where he had to see his still gorgeous ex-wife with the millionaire she’d met (and later married). So why not Mrs. Tomassi too, right?

I can list any number of reasons as to why I trust Mrs. Tomassi, all of which I’ve read from every blue pill married chump in my time in the manosphere, but I’m not so naive as to think that certain circumstances and conditions ‘could’ change and she could also go feral. This is what my brother-in-law never could grasp. His world literally revolved around his wife.

He was by no means a saint, and for all of his dedication to his family and wife, his main fault was his possessiveness. My brother-in-law controlled the frame of his marriage, but this frame control was rooted in an insecure possessiveness bordering on the obsessive. On some level of consciousness he knew, by happenstance, an unplanned pregnancy and an early marriage, that he’d married well above what his realized SMV would’ve normally merited.

Possessiveness

I’ve seen this type of possessiveness in other men as well, but the common thread among them is usually an underlying, subconscious sense that the guy doesn’t deserve the woman he’s locked down in one way or another. A lot of them would be counted amongst the same Betas who subscribe to the Leagues mentality, only much more pronounced – it’s as if through luck or circumstance, or maybe due to a natural Alpha dominance that they don’t really understand they manifest, they get into an LTR with a woman they would otherwise consider “out of their league.”

Just this possessiveness might seem bad enough, but when it’s combined with ONEitis (the soul-mate myth), a Scarcity Mentality, a subscribing to the myth of Relational Equity or especially a self-righteous dedication to his feminine conditioning and White Knighting, then you’ve got a volatile mix of psychoses and a recipe for suicide or murder-suicide. When possessiveness is a man’s ego-investment and his worst fears of losing the “best thing he’ll ever have”, the relationship he subconsciously believes he didn’t deserve, comes to actuality, he may cease to exist because that former reality ceases to exist. What’s worth living for when you’ve already experienced the best you never merited to begin with?

A lot of my readers got irate with me when I suggested that if their girlfriends or wives wanted to head out with the girls for a GNO they should, as indifferently as possible, let them go. Granted, I attached more than a few caveats as to how to go about it, but the operative behind this indifference is really a test of your own possessiveness.

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.

There is always going to be a naturalistic side to male possessiveness. For very good reason evolution selected-for men with a honed sense of suspicion – men want a certainty that their parental investment (or potential for it) will be worth the exchange of resources with a woman who will facilitate it. In other words evolution selected-for men with an internalized, hardwired understanding of women’s biological directive for optimized hypergamy. When a man’s sexual strategy and sexual optimization has to be sacrificed for women’s optimized hypergamous and pluralistic (Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks) sexual strategy in order to breed, monogamy becomes a one-sided risk for him.

Sunshine Mary had a recent post with more than a few loose premises about the nature of women. The first of which was this:

1. Women were not designed by either God / evolution to be traded around among men.  There are few (or no?) societies in human history in which human females were heavily sexually promiscuous, and marriage has existed in some form in nearly every culture.

I’m not drawing attention to SSM to run her up the flagpole for this assumption, but it does illustrate a very visceral point about the possessiveness dynamic we’re exploring today. I responded to Mary with this:

In human male sperm there are 3 heteromorphic types: Killers, Defenders and Runners (fertilizers).

Killers destroy opposing sperm, Defenders encircle the ovum and provide a barrier against opposing sperm’s runners, and Runners specialize in ovum penetration and fertilization.

The only logical purpose for the evolution (or intelligent design if you prefer) of these type-specific sperm adaptations would be to optimize a competitive advantage in female fertilization of promiscuous human females possessing secretive ovulation.

Even the shape of a male penis is “designed” to maximize insertion depth to the uterus and simultaneously shovel out competing sperm from the vagina.

If women weren’t promiscuous, if women’s biological imperative wasn’t dictated by hypergamy, would these biological phenomenon have been a necessary evolution for human males? The predominant state of sexual competition, rooted in the dualistic, cuckolding, sexual strategies of human females, necessitated not only an evolved, male, psychological predilection for sexual fidelity suspicion, but an evolution of three types of purpose-specific sperm cells to maximize passing a man’s genetic legacy under conditions of uncertainty.

The Possessive Difference

Back in his earlier work Roissy had an interesting post about the behavioral manifestations displayed between Alpha men and Beta men. Really he likened the behaviors to more animalistic tendencies, but whether or not you acknowledge similar behaviors in people, the reasoning behind these actions make a lot of sense. Alpha men are slow to respond to sudden stimuli (such as loud noises or boisterous taunts) because they are so unused to any significant challenge – in other words, they’re not jumpy Betas used to opting for flight instead of fight. Their posture and body language convey confidence, but only because this Alpha posture is behaviorally associated with what Alphas do.

This is an important dynamic to understand when we consider possessiveness. A man with an Alpha disposition would be less possessive, and therefore display an indifference to possessing any particular woman due to his condition of (relative) sexual abundance. Possessiveness, or certainly an overly pronounced manifestation of possessiveness is the behavior of a Beta unused to sexual abundance and more likely accustomed sexual rejection.

It’s important to bear in mind that possessiveness is conveyed in a set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs communicated in many ways. It’s not that possessiveness necessarily makes a man unattractive to a woman; on the contrary, it’s almost a universal female fantasy to be possessed by a so deserving and desirably dominant Alpha Man. It’s a visceral endorsement of the status of a woman’s superior desirability among her peers to be the object of such an Alpha Man’s possession; but likewise this is so common a (romance novel) feminine fantasy because of Alpha Men’s general indifference to possessiveness that makes it so tempting for women.

When self-deprecating, undeserving Beta men overtly display possessiveness, women read the behavior for what it is. Beta possessiveness is almost universally a death sentence (often literally) for an LTR. Nothing demonstrates lower value and confirms a lack of hypergamous suitability for a woman than a Beta preoccupied to the brink of obsession with controlling her behaviors. This isn’t to discount the very real reasons an Alpha or a Beta might have concern for a woman’s behaviors, it’s that his own possessiveness conveys a lack of confidence in himself.


The Lesson of Hugo

immolation

Up until just today, other than a few tweets over the last two weeks, the heavy hitters of the manosphere seemed content to simply let Hugo Schwyzer self-immolate. Who can blame them, right? Vox had a quick hit just detailing the revelations of Hugo’s reputation / legitimacy death spiral. Advocatus Diaboli then did the manosphere the favor of highlighting Hugo’s post, post internet exit and twitter meltdown (which may still be ongoing, I’m not sure).

Needless to say Hugo endeared a lot of manosphere spite, but now, in light of all his self-righteous self-destruction and subsequent admissions of complete guilt and culpability in his career spanning, psuedo-feminist scam, we can finally dissect the corpse of Hugo’s grand production. Hugo was almost too easy a foil, too easy a mark for the manosphere. I forget who I read drop this quote, but Game recognizes Game, and for all of Hugo’s purported investment in feminist flag waving, a lot of guys in the ‘sphere saw his Game for what it was.

I’ll have to admit, when I first read the Real Porn Wiki Leaks of Hugo’s professional death throes I was ready to pile on. I need to thank Nick Krauser for talking me off the edge and killing a post I briefly published, ready to join the Hugo scrum, but as he commented, it was ‘off brand’ for me. That’s the temptation of going off half-cocked, most times there’s usually something deeper in the story than just the salacious parts. Sometimes a story needs to mature before you can grasp the significance of it, and Hugo didn’t disappoint.

There’s a lot of angles to Hugo’s destruction. In one sense he actually shared many of the experiences and frustration most men find their way to the manosphere to resolve. He was a Beta, but he was a Beta dedicated to the blue-pill – in fact he was so ego-invested  he built his entire life around the feminine Matrix to the point that his career and livelihood depended upon it. However Hugo wasn’t one of the blue-pill careerists like the Dr. Phills and Dr. Drews, he sold himself as the next stage in feminized man’s evolution – Hugo was the feminized man.

At least this was the pathology he’d convinced himself of.

Pathology

If you’ve ever known a pathological liar, the primary characteristic of their psyche is an ability to convince themselves of the veracity of their own lies. “Repeat a lie enough and it becomes true”,  Joseph Goebbels was inferring this in a social sense, but it’s also true on a personal, psychological level. Repeat the fantasy, replay the mental imaginings, review the desired, conditioned ,belief often enough, and the lie becomes the truth for you. This is the essence of pathology. The pathological personality literally creates its own reality and expects others (or coerces others) to fill the roles he defines for them to fit his narrative. Sometimes this isn’t such a bad thing; think of Steve Jobs defining his own reality, but more often it means the absolute destruction of that person’s identity when actual reality crushes their imagined reality.

Hugo repeated a lie often enough for himself to believe it, a handful of minor league academics to believe it, and broad swathes of the femosphere to believe it. Of course there’ll be the element that will say they knew it all along and he was always a charlatan, but Hugo’s reach into the mainstream, repeating his lie, was a message they could at least tolerate for their cause if not endorse wholesale. Thus, Hugo got a pass – he became the male representative of fem-culture and the happily willing tool of the feminine imperative.

I did promote others but I secretly wanted to be THE male feminist. 12:41 PM – 9 Aug 13 @hugoschwyzer

There’ll be no mercy for Hugo on this or any other manosphere blog. If there’s any consolation for Hugo it’s in his slitting his own net-persona’s throat and thus denying those in the manosphere the satisfaction of roasting him themselves. Even in his self-loathing twitter posts he still expects attention (like a woman) and consoling like a Beta child clutching at the femosphere’s apron strings.

The End Result

However, after all his singular sense of feminized purpose, Hugo got exactly what he wanted; he became, and in his personal destruction still is, the male feminist. He became the male representative of the gynosphere, the go-to guy, the man you sought out if you wanted to better identify with the feminine purpose. Hugo became, and is, the model of the man the feminine imperative would ultimately have any man become – a man so thoroughly invested in the likeness it created for him that it would grant him exclusive access to its most powerful media voice (Jezebel, BlogHer, Xojane, The Atlantic). It’s their game, and Hugo was the only man the feminine imperative was comfortable in legitimizing; he was one of the select few men to be allowed to be take seriously.

Whenever you see one of these pathetic parodies of a man self-identifying as a ‘male feminist’ and holding some hand-scribbled placard with the words, “I need feminism because,…” understand that Hugo Schwyzer is the man the feminine imperative would ultimately have them become. The man at the end of that process, after 47 years of identifying with the feminine, after an utterly destroyed career based on obsessively denigrating his own gender, the end result is what Hugo is today.

For every guy who’s convinced himself of ‘correctness’  of gender equalism, much less feminine-primacy, understand that Hugo’s example is the logical extreme of repressing your gender-purpose in favor of the feminine. For every blue-pill guy on the cusp of taking the red pill and accepting the harsh truths it demands in dispelling your blissful ignorance, understand that if you don’t, the face you’ll see in the future’s mirror will be Hugo’s.

I don’t have any sympathy for Hugo, nor do I have any pity for him. He’s only a year older than myself, so I imagine that he and I share a similar cultural upbringing and life experience. Obviously we differ in experience when it comes to waking up to the Matrix, but here’s a man who, not unlike myself, also had his run-ins with a BPD woman (if not more than one). Hugo, like most men, wanted to get laid, maybe worse than most men, so he built up a Game around identifying with them, only he took this identification to such an extreme that he became a woman, he embodied their expectations, but still retained the liabilities of being a man. Hugo is a living paradox and his destruction viscerally illustrates that even feminists won’t tolerate a perfected feminized man. They don’t want what they want.

For all of Hugo’s blue-pill, male feminism, he was still a man and prone to the desires men innately have.

How many blue-pill men have sought out the manosphere because their similar delusions simply never bore fruit with women, or they were burned by them? At some point Hugo was not all that unlike most guys seeking answers in the manosphere, but at some point he made his decision to remain firmly implanted in his blue-pill existence and cope with his maleness the best way he knew how – an extreme, life investment in what would become the identity crisis he’s experiencing today. Hugo is what is waiting for any man who thinks they can become a better fe-male – they become Gollum, corrupted parodies of their original form, but still accountable to their real nature.


Appeals to Reason

thinker

“A woman in love can’t be reasonable, otherwise she wouldn’t be in love”
— Mae West

Last week The Chateau posted an article about a Beta male asking girls for reasons why they rejected him. In the typical deductive logic that most Betas are prone to use, he runs down a checklist of questions regarding what he thinks killed his chances with the girls he thought he could get with. He petitions four women with questions about themselves, which, being women, all are more than eager to answer.

Do you usually figure out if you wanna do more than make out with someone pretty instantly? Or, is it a slow burn?

Was there anything I did wrong that turned you off?

If you had advice for any guy looking to meet a girl, what would it be?

What makes someone attractive to you? Do you have any types?

Do you feel that you could never date someone shorter than you?

Am I an unattractive person to you?

These are some of the more common questions John Brown puts to the girls, and true to form the girls answer with the standard feminine boilerplate responses that absolve themselves of their part in his rejection, while trying not to hurt the feelings of a guy they knew would never see them naked. With the exception of maybe Vanessa, it’s pretty clear that John’s punching well above his blue-pill weight with these girls even though I’d only rate Victoria as the only HB8 in the bunch.

The questioning is what I’ve come to expect from most chumps mired in their blue pill bubble of applying logic to their sexlessness, but it’s not John’s overt grilling of these women that’s keeping him trapped in the Matrix – it’s his buildups and followups to those questions. John isn’t just interviewing them to ‘get to the bottom of things’ so he can solve his sex problem, he’s leading these women with ‘if then’ logic in an effort to convince them that, by their own words, they should be attracted to him.

John is make the most fundamental error every plugged in chump makes — he’s appealing to women’s reason.

Why Women Can’t ‘Just Get It

Appealing to women’s logic and relying on deductive reasoning to sort it out is the calling card of a Beta mind. There is nothing more anti-seductive for women than appealing to her reason. Arousal, attraction, sexual tension, subcommunication of desire, all happen indirectly and below the social surface for women. It’s not that women are incapable of reasoning (hypergamy is one logical bitch) or are crippled by their emotion-based hindbrains, it’s that if you’re asking her how to be more attractive you don’t Get It. It’s in the doing, not the asking.

If you read through the responses these women give John from a red pill perspective, you’ll see a pattern emerge. On an intrinsic, subliminal level,  women understand that their genuine desire, their genuine arousal and attraction, has to be an organic process. When a guy like John makes attempts to convince a woman that by her own reasoning (and led by his) she should be with him intimately, it offends and then cancels that process for her.

For women, one of the qualities of the Alpha her Hypergamy demands is a guy who Just Gets It. An Alpha would intrinsically know what women’s arousal and attraction cues are without being told and without even the inclination to ask about them. John’s issue of overtly confirming for himself ‘what women want’ is really an abdication of a Beta who doesn’t get it. And true to form, John’s, and Betas like him, next logical resort is to rationally convince a woman (preferably using her own words) to be attracted to him by attempting to re-impress her of his status.

Betas like this generally end up as the infamous emotional tampon, or the Surrogate Boyfriend to a woman who’s banging the most Alpha Man her looks can attract. However, this appeal-to-reason rationale filters into other aspects of men’s lives. The logical progression for John would be to better identify with the women (really the feminine imperative) he hopes to bang in the future – embody the feminine prerequisites, get the intimate approval. For married or monogamous men this appeal-to-reason may come as a mistaken belief that doing more chores around the house will lead to more (or any) sex for him.

The fallacy of Relational Equity is essentially founded on men’s dependency on appeals to women’s reason. Your doing homework with your children to better their lives (while very ennobling) doesn’t make your wife any hotter for you in bed, nor will it be any bargaining tool should she decide to leave you. Just as John is learning here, women don’t fall in love with who you are, they fall in love with what you are, and no appeal to their reason will convince them otherwise.

Red Pill Women

There’s a lot being made in the manosphere about the emergence of red pill or Game aware women. I’m on record for stating that every woman is a red pill woman, it’s just getting them to drop the feminine-primary, psychological pretense and cop to red pill truths that’s the trick. While I do share the generally wariness of self-identifying “Red Pill Women” and their potential for sanitizing or repurposing Game-awareness to a better feminine liking, I think most women are already aware of the truth of Game. There’s a very real danger in Men accepting “red pill women’s” conversion and acceptance of those truths for exactly the appeal-to-reason dynamic I’ve described here.

Red pill women’s acceptance of what the manosphere forces them to acknowledge about themselves is essentially a convincing appeal to their reason, and this will always make their “conversion” suspect. Regardless of their reported red pill self-awareness, red pill women still want a guy to Just Get It, their desire still can’t be negotiated, and as illogical as it may seem to a manosphere Man, hoping to appeal to the same reason that made her “red pill” still wont get you laid.

Red pill or not, women are still women, and basing any relationship you have with them on appealing to their reason, rather than solid Game awareness and truths, is building you house on a foundation of sand.


The Script

script

There is a certain formula most romantic comedies rely on to convey how relations between men and women ought to go. It’s an old formula, as in Shakespeare and Greek antiquity old. It goes something like this:

An avowed Alpha bachelor for life questions the existence and nature of love, the sincerity of women, the illogic of not living just for his own self-importance, certainly the institution of marriage and lives, according to his rules, a satisfying life. He rationally observes the “madness” of his friends and fellow men when they fall in love, and out of it. He either mocks their foolishness or is analytical to the core in understanding their madnesses. He is an elemental force of one – a captain controlling the course of his own ship. He’s not wrong in his estimations; they all add up, they all make deductive, provable sense.

That is until he meets her. The ONE special woman who miraculously, alone amongst billions, has the unique power to bring the facade of all that he thinks he is into stark, insightful self-realization. He’s bit by the bug, smitten by the only woman who could fatefully tame the arrogance of his otherwise cruel rationalism. It’s akin to a religious conversion; he’s seen the light, he’s in love and all of his former concerns are proven to be falsehoods – it’s the triumph of true love! The one thing he was missing (the one thing only a woman can possess of course), the last piece to a puzzle he didn’t know he was  putting together, has been added and now he is complete. And they live happily ever after,…

Every writer from Shakespeare to Bronte, to modern writers, use some variation of this outline. The locations, time periods and actors change, but the basic story doesn’t. If you need a contemporary example watch Gerard Butler (King Leonidas, 300) in The Ugly Truth. The reason this formula is so successful and timeless is because it is essentially the fantasy of love and emotionalism trumping logic and reason. Women naturally love this because it puts them into the position of being the ‘cure’ to a man’s illness while making him look like a brooding, sulking, bitter child for clinging so tenaciously to his rationalism, when all he was really pouting about was feeling unloved.

All his intense powers of rationality, all of his implicitly provable facts, all of his monuments and achievements of deduction mean nothing without the only irrational thing a woman can uniquely supply – unknowable, fantastical love. It’s part and parcel of the Myth of the Feminine Mystique which makes women the gatekeepers of the knowledge of love; don’t try to understand it with your silly boy-logic, just leave well enough alone and be eternally grateful to whichever god you worship that a woman has favored you with the love you need to be perfected.

In this story, the build-up to men realizing this is what stokes the feminine indignation that sustains women’s interest, but the real satisfaction is summed up at the end when he finally concedes to the feminine imperative and drops all his pretense and submits to love.

The satisfaction doesn’t last long though, because it was the build-up, the tension, the anxiety, the want of a woman to scream at the TV, “SHE LOVES YOU!! JUST GET IT YOU STUPID MAN!!” that was making it at all interesting. Once he’s submitted and seen her light, all of that fades away to predictable, boring comfort. She’s done with that romance novel, puts it in the pile of them at the garage sale, and moves on to the next. And he’s left with all the echoes of his past rationalism, and explaining to all those he’s influenced and built his reputation upon, how love conquers all and how wrong he was all along.

For that man, it’s the last chapter in the vindication of feminine primacy.

And they lived happily ever after,..

For women, the only thing better than experiencing this script vicariously through movies and stories is to see it happen live. David D’Angelo, Tucker Max are a few manosphere notable who’ve played the come-full-circle surrender to the script. There are far more guys who play it in a more visual sense (the repentant ‘Womanizer’ episodes on the Tyra Banks show comes to mind), but no one really remembers them, and certainly not in the ‘sphere. While there’s a sense of vindication for women to have a guy surrender his anti-social (i.e. anti-feminine primary) lifestyle and beliefs in favor of a feminine paradigm, and “settle down” into a feminine framed, normalized monogamy, surrender is still surrender. Essentially the strong vibrant man who posed such a challenge to her, the one who’s steadfast determination and conviction made him a man she was hot for as well as one she could respect, loses his status.

He’ll say, hey, you don’t know where I’m at in life, you don’t know the experiences I’ve had, life has taught me the value of compromise. Women fundamentally lack the capacity to appreciate the sacrifices a man must make to facilitate a feminine reality, but if there’s one thing women outright despise, one thing men foolishly believe women should be able to appreciate, it’s a man willing to compromise the beliefs he’s established his reputation and integrity upon in order to facilitate her feminine reality. That’s the definition of a sell-out.

After the happily ever after comes the living. He can console himself in his new paradigm, he can hole up in a cocoon of domestication and simply not answer the phone calls of all his old friends who are also playing into the script, who are really only waiting to commiserate with him, but his new domesticity compromise wont allow him to. His old life is gone right? Love conquered him, made him a new man, ready to live up to the new, correct, feminine expectations he formerly railed against, but has been enlightened to and now calls his new masculine purpose. He’s been converted.

He looks into that girl’s eyes, the one who changed him for the better, but the memory of the urgency, the desire to tame him, the adrenaline he inspired all seem like an old song that reminds her of that thrill.

 

I would never wish ill on my fellow man, no matter his crimes, no matter his station, so I wont do so now. I sincerely hope nothing but the best for any man making this surrender, he will need every good fortune that comes along in the face of compromising his reputation and purpose in order to facilitate a woman’s primacy.

However, I’ll add that I also make it my policy never to speak ill of the dead.


Left Behind

left_behind

I’m going to relate a real story of a good friend of mine here as an illustration of a larger dynamic.

My friend Rob was what most guys would call a ‘natural Alpha’ in his younger days; fit, smart in an unlearned kind of way, and to the guys who couldn’t appreciate his straightforwardness, he had the Alpha ‘attitude’ that made him kind of an asshole to the people who didn’t know him. He was in the military for a bit right out of high school and that seemed to work well for him since he learned to be a damn good airframe mechanic and parlayed that into a pretty good career for a while.

Although he was a natural Alpha, Rob’s approach to women was very much conditioned by the influence of the feminine imperative. He had girls who were attracted to him, but he had a tendency for ONEitis so once he’d locked on to Kim that was his focus. He would say “I would do anything and everything for the right girl” because that was his belief, sacrifice and support were his mandates before they’d even met. Eventually she ‘accidentally’ became pregnant when they were both 19.

Rob’s ONEitis took on the predictable sense of masculine purpose to “do the right thing” when she told him the news. They were young, and even 20+ years ago he was aware that couples married young had a very low ‘success’ rate, but as expected he believed he and his soon to be wife would be the exception to that rule. Whether it was his predisposition for ONEitis or his righteous ‘natural’ Alpha stubbornness, at 19 he was determined to be a good father and husband.

Kim was always the less enthusiastic partner in the marriage, but she wasn’t going to have an abortion, and while she was uncertain about Rob’s future potential at 19 she married him. 5 years later they had two daughters and then a son 2 years after that. I would describe their marriage as one of convenience except that Rob genuinely loved Kim and the kids. His Alpha attitude only drove him on that much further as a good provider, but as Kim and he entered their early 30′s and their older children became more self-sufficient it was becoming clear that she was subtly and indifferently distancing herself from Rob.

At about 29 Kim went to work in a middle management position. Up until then she’d been a stay-at-home mom, but with the kids in school (except their youngest) she wanted to get into working. For having 3 children Kim was in exceptionally good shape (too good of shape in hindsight), Rob had put on a few pounds, but still had his upper body muscularity. Kim was at the gym and work more than she was at home now, and it was something that even heroic-ONEitis Rob was beginning to be annoyed with.

Kim had new friendships at work now, mostly single women in their mid to late 20′s while Kim was almost 31. All of her new work girlfriends were single and wanting her to come out with them for drinks after work. They didn’t call them GNOs (girls night out) but this is what they were without calling them such. Dutiful Rob would look after the kids and content himself with beer and movies at home. Even as this became a more common occurrence Rob still clung to the heroic, supportive, father/husband/provider role. Rob still wasn’t what anyone would call a Beta, but in his ONEitis devotion and his increasing domestic role this is what Kim saw in him.

Kim went from living vicariously through her 20′s girlfriends’ weekend stories, to watching them from the sidelines at the clubs, to actively engaging in their escapades. I’m sure most readers know where this is going, and yes Kim eventually cheated on Rob. I had the dubious, but serious, honor of talking him out of murdering both Kim and a co-worker guy she’d hooked up with at 4am after he’d tracked them both to the motel they ended up at that night. He had the kids in the car with him the whole time we were on the phone.

Missing Out

I’m presenting this story, not as some precautionary tale to scare you into not marrying early so much as to better understand the other side of doing so. Anyone who’s read my blog long enough knows I advocate men not even becoming seriously monogamous until after the age of 30. I realize that for most men this is a pretty tall order, and for most guys untenable, but the principle is that men need to realize and actualize their SMV potential before they can accurately assess their true role in the SMP, and then, evaluate the quality of any woman they’d want to become monogamous with according to their Game awareness.

My friend Rob never made that connection and lived (and still lives) by what an adolescent social skill set and his feminized conditioning had taught him. Rob was enraged about the infidelity, but he took Kim back, they went to the ubiquitous marriage counseling, and attempted the typical negotiations of Kim’s genuine desire for Rob. Rob was still playing by a rule set he believed Kim should recognize and should appreciate (i.e. Relational Equity fallacy), but after 3 kids and “missing out on her 20′s”, Kim’s Hypergamy didn’t care.

At this point, Kim’s leaving Rob was just a formality, but the end came when Rob had an on-the-job injury to his back and he could no longer perform his job. He got pretty good disability, but it wasn’t what Kim had built up to making. Blood was in the water, and Kim went feral. Eventually she took the kids and left Rob to his own means, while she moved half a state away to “find herself” and get into the scene she missed in her 20′s.

For the men in the manosphere who want to use Game as a means to locking down an idealized wife, a lot gets made about marrying (or becoming monogamous) with a woman while she’s young – preferably in or just before her peak SMV years (18-24). Generally the idea is that if you can get to her early enough – before she rides the infamous cock carousel – and she’s cut from the right cloth for monogamy, then by way of a guy being the (hopefully) first Alpha she’s encountered, she’ll solidly pair-bond with him – bearing him healthy children in her fertilely prime years and remain his emotionally bonded, loyal and devoted wife for a lifetime.

I like this fantasy, as I’m sure most idealistic men would. In fact it might even be realistic for a guy in his peak SMV years (30-36) to pull this off with the right amount of status and Amused Mastery if his own value is well established. However, as per the story of Rob and Kim here, there is another risk to the ‘marry young’ scenario and that’s what I call the Left Behind dynamic.

Left Behind

In contemporary western society, even the most farm-raised, home schooled of girls are still going to be incessantly bombarded by the ‘be all you can be’ (previously ‘you can have it all’) social advertising the Feminine Imperative has for girls. Raising a daughter in such times (and I speak from experience) is fraught with risks of appearing to be limiting her potential while attempting educate her about the real limitations of women’s fast-burn SMV and the choices she’ll have to make very early in her life that will affect her later life once she’s past those peak years. I should add that for a father to even hint at these limitations publicly makes him instantly guilty of misogyny, patriarchy, male privilege oppression and every other male-crime the Feminine Imperative has a long established name for. However, even mothers will be accused of being domineered by that patriarchal mindset for attempting to educate their daughters about the real limitations of being a woman today and choosing between different life paths.

With this as the foundation, the inherent risk of finding, not to mention wifing-up, the ideal young girl, predisposed to marriage (unplanned pregnancies not withstanding) is that as a she matures, a woman begins to question the choices she made. While it’s almost a cliché now to breakdown the life path that led to the regret of never-married or divorced aging spinsters in the age of career women, the other side of that coin is the early-married woman contemplating ‘her life that could’ve been’ and the motivation to change her path. It’s easy to find fault with women who delayed accepting a marriage proposal for their own SMV convenience or self-interest, but it’s the early-married Kim’s of the world who are far more susceptible to the Eat, Pray, Love script as they approach the downslide of their SMV.

Ironically it’s the same feminine-primary social influence that encourages ‘be all you can be’ (and demeans her for not living up to her girl-power potential) that also embraces her when she re-plots her life course after leaving the husband of her youth. Mix in her single and divorced friends’ encouragement with fem-centric social promptings and top it off with an innate Hypergamy that never stops subconsciously asking “is this guy the best you can do?” after 12 years of marriage and you can see why she’d feel left behind.

As a Game aware, red pill Man it’s imperative that you consider both sides of a woman’s choices and adjust your Game accordingly. Half the reason I made the rough attempt at graphing the SMP and men and women’s SMV’s respective to each gender’s age is so men could predict and expect the behaviors, mindsets and social variables women will be susceptible to at various phases of their lives. It is, however, important, to consider the choices women have made in the lives they led before and after they meet you. It’s becoming increasingly too easy for men to think, “damn, if only I’d have met her when she was younger and inexperienced, she’d be more attached to me now.” This isn’t always the case.


Crisis of Motive

woman-pulling-puppet-strings

I had an interesting conversation with a cocktail waitress recently about how she wore the sexy outfits she did because they reaffirmed who she was.

“I do it for me.”

“Really? Lingerie, high heels, push up bra, that’s all for you?”

“Of course. I’m my own woman.”

“So, it’s not about the attention and affirmation you get from the men around you.”

“Well, that’s nice, if it’s coming from the right kind of guy, but I don’t wear what I do for them.”

“So if I came over to your house unannounced at like, 4 in the afternoon, you’d be wearing all this while you were vacuuming the house and not in sweatpants and a t-shirt?”

“Well,..no, but that’s not the point, I’m more comfortable in sweats,..”

“I see.”

It was far too easy to box her into the corner she was painting herself into, but I wont be too hard on her since this crisis of motive is also found in men. I can’t recall how many times I’ve heard guys at Gold’s tell me the same thing as to why they workout.

“I do it for me! Yeah, of course, chicks check me out more now that I’ve dropped the fat and bulked up, but this is all for me man.”

I’ll admit, I was that guy at one time. For a guy it makes sense to cop the story of singularity of purpose since it implies that he’s his ‘own man’ and not improving himself to become more acceptable to the women he observably and admittedly wants to get with. This is the paradox of self-improvement – are you doing it for yourself or because you want to others to respond more positively to you? It doesn’t have to be one or the other, it can be both.

There are certainly many side benefits to bodybuilding – improved health, attitude, lower stress, life-preserving function that results from increased muscularity, etc. but the minute we drop ‘a better sex life’ into that equation then we have to qualify it all with the “I do it for me” standby; as if our motivating desire to get laid is any less important than all of that. I’ll tell you right now, with 25+ years of lifting on my record, while I enjoy a lower life/health insurance premium as a result, I enjoy sex far too much to ever let myself become a fat ass. I do it for me and I do it because Mrs. Tomassi (and other women) responds positively to it and I enjoy the results.

This is a fundamental question guys swallowing the red pill and adopting a new Game-aware life have to answer – who are you doing it for?

There are a lot of traps involved in answering this question; traps that other AFC crabs in the barrel will use to pull you back in, traps that will attempt to convince you that you’re ‘being someone you’re not‘ and traps that will flatter you for your insightful desire to improve yourself, but only insofar as it serves feminine purposes. This is a common tar pit for men on the edge of accepting Red Pill truth:

From the Unbearable Triteness of Hating:

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

Whether he was intending to or not, Roissy was of course responding to exactly this crisis of motive. I don’t specifically agree or disagree with all the tenets of men who identify as MGTOW (I understand the reasoning), but I must point out that, from what I read, the crux of their beliefs are rooted in this same motive crisis. Is what you do, who you are, what you believe, a genuine, organic result of your own decision making (doing it for you) or is all you are the result of a latent purpose to better please a woman (or the Feminine Imperative for that matter)?

Introspect

Aunt Giggles had a post about a week ago lauding all the introspective men concerned with their own self-improvement. Bravo! Bravo introspective Beta, dig down deeper and embrace your inner white knight. While it may range between ego-flattering to self-evincing, true introspection is only useful in the light of why  you’re being introspective in the first place. You may get a pat on the back from the Feminine Imperative for introspectively aligning yourself with the Beta model it’s conditioned you for, or you may get a well needed cold bucket of Red Pill awareness splashed in your face as the result of your introspection, but the question is still who or what are you being introspective for?

With a crisis of motive, it’s very easy to not only cast doubt about the motives of others when they don’t agree with our own, but also to reaffirm our own faith in our own decision making. How many times have Game denialists said something like “those red pill guys are just misogynists, only interested in getting laid as much as possible”? This belief-disqualifier is based on the the presumption that sex is a red pill Man’s only, true, motivator – not himself, not for his own enlightenment, not of his own genuine volition. Red pill guys believe what they do to get laid and therefore dance to the tune women (or their sexual impulse) are playing for them. Distilled down to it’s base, the message is they aren’t acting as individual rational agents, but as robotic slaves beholden to external influences (in this case women or their sex drives). In other words, someone or something is controlling their decisions for them.

That’s some powerful affirmation for the one making accusations of disingenuousness, because it confirms for himself that not only is he a ‘genuine’ actor, but his insight must necessarily be more valid than the guy he’s judging. The problem with this, as I’m sure most are now aware, is that the accuser is already molded by outside influences himself. Thus, his motivation for accusation is suspect of a crisis of motive.

I understand this is some heady shit to take in, but I think it’s important to consider for guys on the cusp of Game-awareness, doubting their genuine want for changing themselves, as well as for guys falling back on motive crisis reasonings in order to justify why other men might disagree with them. I think an important question Men need to ask themselves is why am I changing my belief, my customs, my interpretations? It may be that it comes as a result of introspection, or a new awareness brought to them from an outside influence (the manosphere), but the answer to the question of who do you do it for is both yourself and the outside motivator.

So what made you change? Was it something I or another blogger wrote? Was it a traumatic experience that shocked you into awareness? Or were you just getting what you’d always gotten by doing what you’d always done?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,649 other followers